Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor)commonly called ‘fairy penguins‘ due to their small fairy-like sizeArrive ashore after feeding on ‘pelagic’ fish in Bass Strait in southern Australia
‘Little Penguins‘, marine birds native to Australia and New Zealand, every day consume about their body weight (~1.2kg). Their prime food sources are small marine pelagic fish (76%) and squid (24%). [Source: ^http://www.graniteisland.com.au/pdf/parks_pdfs_little_penguins.pdf]
Given that the Australian breeding population across coastal southern Australia is estimated to be up to 500,000 individuals (Ross et al.1995), the Australian Little Penguin’s annual dependency on marine pelagic fish would amass over 450,000 kgs. (Calculation: 500,000 penguins * 1.2kg each * 76% = 456,000 kg of pelagic fish).
Their numbers are healthy but how vulnerable are they to pelagic overfishing?
.
Australia’s industrial exploitation of Nature
.
“Australia has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. The destruction and fragmentation of habitat, particularly as a result of clearance of vegetation for agriculture, and the impact of feral animals and invasive weeds has had a substantial impact on our biodiversity.
Altogether, 18 mammal species have become extinct since the arrival of European settlers a little more than 200 years ago. Twenty percent of our remaining mammal species are threatened with extinction.”
Australia’s states of Tasmania and Queensland, with their renowned parochial politics, hold Australia’s unenviable reputation for the worst industrial exploitation of Nature and ecological destruction.
In Queensland the extent of recent land clearing is more than 425 000 hectares per year. Between September 2001 and August 2003, approximately 1 051 000 hectares of
woody vegetation was cleared (Government of Queensland, 2005). If Queensland were a country, it would rank 9th worst in the world in terms of land clearing. [^CSIRO]
In Tasmania, less than 20% of the original rainforest is left, and the ancient Styx Valley is being clearfelled and incinerated by Forestry Tasmania for loss-making woodchips at the rate of 300 to 600 hectares a year. [^The Wilderness Society] Many wild river valleys have been flooded by damned hydro, and vast landscapes scarred by mining and the groundwater toxins and tannins they leave behind. Industrial scale ecological destruction on an industrial scale still continues with parochial government’s short term profit myopia.
Tasmanian politics has a prejudiced record of giving industrialists free reign to plunder the environment, branded ‘primary industry‘:
.
Tasmania’s ‘Primary Industry’ legacy
.
Since 1803 when the whaling ship Albion took three whales at Great Oyster Bay, colonists started a whaling and fur seal industry based on the Derwent River as well as on Bruny Island and up the east coast of Tasmania to Spring Bay (Triabunna) and Bicheno
Convict slave labour from 1803 on the Derwent River was put to work deforesting the surrounding countryside
Convict ‘Piners’ from 1819 who ransacked the extremely rare (endemic) Huon Pine from forests near Macquarie Harbour
Since 1895, damming of rivers for hydro power and the flooding of many rivers and notably Lake Pedder in 1972 under the Great Lake Scheme, when the Hydro-Electric Commission became an industrial power unto its own from 1929 through to 1998
Mining since 1820 for coal, tin, copper, gold, lead, zinc, silver and nickel – leaving scarred moonscapes around Mount Lyell, Zeehan, Savage River, Mount Bischoff, along the Ringarooma Valley, Fingal Valley, Beaconsfield and elsewhere.
Since 1916, the construction of industrial and polluting smelters such as Amalgamated Zinc Company, then in 1921 the Nyrstar Hobart Smelter on the Derwent River, and since 1955 the Bell Bay aluminium smelter on the Tamar River
The industrial deforestation of Tasmanian forests since convict times, accelerating with the advent of steam and rail from the 1850s. By 1996, 43% of Tasmania’s original wet
Eucalyptus forest had been logged and still 64.5% remain open for logging including Eucalyptus regnans —the world’s tallest hardwood trees, many of which are over 400 years old. [Rainforest Action Network, p.8]
The recent establishment of industrial pulp and timber producer Ta Ann south of Hobart and the current proposed Gunns’ pulp mill which collectively threaten to woodchip most of Tasmania’s remaining unprotected native forests. The approval process has been plagued by political abuse of due process and special deals for Gunns, lacking independent scrutiny or community support.
Map of 19th Century whaling bases on Tasmania’s coastline
Spring Bay was part of that exploitative legacy
.
So what has this disgraceful legacy got to do with Little Penguins arriving ashore after feeding on pelagic fish in Bass Strait?
Tasmanian-based industrial fishing corporation, SeaFish Tasmania, is set to double its annual fishing catch of pelagic marine fish in Bass Strait from August 2012 from 5,000 tonnes to 10,600 tonnes. The problem is that such a massive quota risks jeopardising the sustainability of the fish populations and the dependent marine species that depend upon them.
Pelagic marine fish live near the surface of the water and range in size from small coastal forage fish like small herrings and sardines to large apex predator oceanic fishes like Southern Bluefin Tuna and oceanic sharks. Also feeding on pelagic fish are Little Penguins and Australia Fur Seals. Pelagic fish habitat stretches from inshore waters to offshore over the Australian Continental Shelf and variable continental slope waters at depths from the surface down to about 500 metres.
Pelagic Pacific Jack Mackerel swim in schools near the sea surface
.
Since 2000 Seafish Tasmania, based on Tasmania’s east coast at Spring Bay (Triabunna), has been the dominant Tasmanian fishing corporation targeting the Small Pelagics Fishery in southern Australian waters.
To date, Seafish Tasmania has relied upon its own purse seine trawler, the 800 tonne ‘Ellidi’ as well as two smaller contract vessels, to trawl for pelagic fish on the Continental Shelf off Tasmania. At its Triabunna factory, Seafish Tasmania converts its pelagic fish catches into a range of frozen seafood products for human consumption.both for domestic and export markets.
Seafish Tasmania also produces frozen Redbait specifically for the commercial Long-Line Fishing industry in Indonesia, the Pacific and Indian oceans.
Long Line Fishing is indiscriminate
.
But Long line Fishing is cruel and indiscriminate. It is criticized worldwide for the merciless death of species such as sharks, turtles and seabirds, all caught unwanted as by-catch.
Trapped Humpback whale Caught in a Long Line Fishing net off Tonga in the Pacific in 2009
This heart-breaking image shows the desperate plight of a whale trapped by equipment used in a controversial form of commercial fishing. The southern-hemisphere humpback became entangled in a long line and was spotted by a snorkeller last week fighting for her life.
Long lines, sometimes covering several miles, are left floating out in deep waters and have baited hooks placed on them every few metres. The fishing method has drawn criticism from conservation groups because they indiscriminately hook unwanted catches such as passing turtles, sharks and whales. Sadly for this female, she got snared near the Tongan island of Vava’u. Despite breaking free, she was left wrapped up in the line with several of the hooks imbedded in her flesh.
The Marine Stewardship Council (has) allowed two eco-certifications for the use of longlines for swordfish fishing that will effect sea turtles and sharks drastically. For every swordfish caught, two sharks are killed. Every year 1,200 endangered sea turtles are hooked by longlines, resulting in drowning.
Seafish Tasmania’s involvement in GM aquaculture raises similar concerns about its ecological ethics.
.
Australia’s southern ‘Small Pelagic Fishery‘
.
Seafish Tasmania targets the following pelagic marine fish species in Australia’s southern Small Pelagic Fishery– Eastern sub-area for its chosen seafood markets:
Jack Mackerel
Blue Mackerel
Redbait
.
However, this Small Pelagic Fishery (including eastern Bass Strait) provides a marine habitat to many diverse species of pelagic fish, which raises the question of the impact of non-targeted fish being caught as unwanted ‘bycatch‘?
Bass Strait lies between the Victorian coastline and the island of Tasmania, and the targeted Small Pelagics Fishery stretches eastward into the Tasman Sea. Its pelagic marine fish typically comprise Pilchards, Barracuda, Common Jack Mackerel (Trachurus declivis), Blue Mackerel (Scomber australasicus), Redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus), and Yellowtail Scad (Trachurus novaezelandiae). These attracts larger predators such as shark species preferring shallower depths such as Mako Sharks (Isurus oxyrinchus), Blue Sharks (Prionace glauca) and the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) which is listed by CITES as a protected species and similarly classified by the IUCN has having a ‘Vulnerable‘ status’.
But back in 1995, the marine health of Bass Strait was put into question when a 20-nautical-mile slick of dead pilchards was discovered off Devonport. The slick was thought to be caused by a mysterious deadly virus or toxin.
Tens of millions of pilchards were found floating dead in waters from Western Australia to Victoria. A merchant seaman had said that his cargo ship had sailed through 20 nautical miles of dead pilchards in Bass Strait. Mr Hamish Macadie, first mate on the Searoad Mersey, said he saw the fish about six nautical miles from the Devonport coast..
“They were floating on the water and were really thick in some areas. We sailed through about 20 miles of dead pilcards“, Mr Macadie said.
Australia’s coastal small pelagic fishes, which are often surface-schooling, includes several families which are often each represented by several species (see Allen 1997, Randall et al. 1997, Gomon et al. 2008), including the Clupeidae (sardines, herrings and sprats), Engraulidae (anchovies), Carangidae (scads, jack mackerel), Scombridae (short mackerels), Atherinidae (hardyheads, silversides), Arripidae (Australian herring) and Emelichthidae (redbait). [‘Pelagic Fishes and Sharks‘ by Hobday, Griffiths,Ward 2009 : 4]. Other fish species of Bass Strait include Majo Sharks, Gummy Sharks, Threshers, Yellowtail Kingfish and Snapper.
The Small Pelagic Fishery of the Eastern sub-area…’is just the beginning’ But Seafish Australia’s utilisation of a factory trawler won’t be limited to just 10,600 tonnes of pelagic fish p.a. It has in its sights the entire Small Pelagic Fishery across to Perth.This will deplete the fish stocks of the protected Great White Shark, so lookout surfers at Ceduna!!
[Source: ^http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/fisheries-a-to-z-index/small-pelagic-fishery/maps/]
.
Commonwealth Marine Reserves – Flinders and Freycinet Sanctuary Zones
.
The Small Pelagic Fishery set by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority ignores the marine ecologiccal values of the two delineated Sanctuary Zones of Australia’s South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network. This includes the Flinders Commonwealth Marine Reserve and the Freycinet Commonwealth Marine Reserve (See green-shaded areas below).
Yet the Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s (AFMA) map invades two IUCN Sanctuary Zonesi.e. thetop two green shaded areas ‘Flinders’ and ‘Freycinet’
.
This South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network has been designed to contribute to the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA). The aim of NRSMPA continues to be to protect and conserve important habitats which represent all of Australia’s major ecological regions and the communities of marine plants and animals they contain.
Both the Flinders and Freycinet Commonwealth Marine Reserves were nationally proclaimed in 2007
March 2012: Tasmania’s parochialism again?
.
In Tasmania, when it comes to industrial exploitation, the old parochial adage still prevails – ‘it’s not what you know, but who you know‘.
Director of Seafish Tasmania, Gerry Geen, is:
“Advisor to Australia and international governments on fisheries management and fisheries economics.”
The fishing quota limits (Total Allowable Catch) for this Small Pelagic Fishery are periodically assessed and determined by the committee of Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), which takes advice specifically from the South East Management Advisory Committee (MAC). The fishing quota for this Small Pelagic Fishery for 2012-13 was agreed at a recent teleconference by the South East MAC on 26 March 2012, based upon the advise from the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) Resource Assessment Group (RAG).
Of note, two out of the ten members of the SPF RAG have pecuniary interests specifically in this Small Pelagic Fishery. Denis Brown has commercial fishing permits including in SPF zones A, B, C, and D and controls a Pelagic Fish Processors plant at Eden on the New South Wales south coast. While director of Seafish Tasmania, Gerry Geen, holds a Zone A purse-seine SPF Permit, four Tasmanian purse-seine Jack Mackerel Permits, a Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Trawl Boat SFR permits.
The reported minutes of the South East MAC on 26 March 2012 teleconference included Total Allocable Catch Declarations as follows:
.
Recommended Total Allowable Catches for Blue Mackerel, Redbait and Yellowtail Scad for 2012/13 in the Eastern Zone
~ by the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) Resource Assessment Group (RAG)
Total Allowable Catch Recommendation #1:
“Blue Mackerel 2,600 (Tier 2)
Redbait 6,900 (Tier 1)
Australian Sardine 200 (Tier 2)”
.
Total Allowable Catch Recommendation #3:
“Increase the Jack Mackerel (east) Recommended Biological Catches (RBC) from 5,000 tonnes to 10,600 tonnes, subject to conditional support from the RAG’s conservation member and the RAG’s recreational member.”
June 2012: Factory Freezer Vessel (FV Magiris) chartered by Seafish Tasmania
10,000 tonne Lithuanian-owned Factory Fishing Vessel ‘FV Margiris’ Recently contracted by Seafish Tasmania to trawl the Small Pelagic Fishery off Tasmania’s north east coastIts draft of 5.5 metres is too deep for Spring Bay, so it must be operated out of Devonport
[Source: ^http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1220863]
.
‘Super trawler operator Seafish Tasmania yesterday indicated it had begun the process of having the Lithuanian vessel Margiris registered as Australian.
Director Gerry Geen said the company aimed to start fishing in Australian waters (the Small Pelagic Fishery) by August 2012…
The company has been granted an 18,000 tonne annual quota. Greens Leader Nick McKim told parliament the increase had been allowed because of the super trawler, Margiris.
“The Commonwealth quota for jack mackeral will be doubled” he said. “Now this makes a mockery of claims that it is science underpinning these decisions because, of course, the doubling has only occurred because this super trawler has applied to come down and work in Australian Commonwealth waters.”
Vast swathe … the Margiris supertrawler. Photo: Greenpeace
.
‘Say hello to our fishing future. It’s called Margiris. If ever Australians needed convincing that the global appetite for fish is our problem too, this supertrawler is it. Twice the size of the previous largest vessel ever to fish our Commonwealth waters, it measures 142 metres in length and weighs 9,600 tonnes. Its Dutch owners are changing its flag of registration from Lithuanian to Australian.
By August, it is scheduled to be roaming between the Tasman Sea and Western Australia in pursuit of 17,500 tonnes a year of small pelagic fish.
Tagged … Greenpeace activists write on the side of the Margiris in the Atlantic off Mauritania in 2011
(Photo by Greenpeace, March 2011)
.
But it’s not simply the size of FV Margiris that brings home the issue of rising industrial pressure on fish stocks. It’s the stark story of seafood market forces. Last March, in the Atlantic off Mauritania, Greenpeace activists wrote “plunder” on the side of the Margiris. They are campaigning against European operators who are taking West Africa’s fish, leaving locals catchless.
In Australia, the Margiris is set to catch the same sort of fish – jack mackerel, blue mackerel and redbait – and freeze them into blocks for export.
The destination of the catch? “The large majority will go to West Africa for human consumption, as frozen whole fish,” said Seafish Tasmania director Gerry Geen.
Australian fishers have long sought to exploit the country’s so-called “small pelagics”, which are prey for bigger fish such as tuna and marlin. Seafish Tasmania is partnering with ship owners Parlevliet & Van der Plas to do this on a scale previously unseen.
Alarms have been raised in other global fisheries about these mainly Europe-based small-pelagic hunters.
.
According to The New York Times, stocks of Jack Mackerel have dropped from an estimated 30 million metric tons to less than a tenth of that amount in just two decades.
.
The minutes of an Australian Fisheries Management Authority advisory committee show serious debate about the introduction of the Margiris. They reveal that Mr Geen, who was on the committee, gave “background” input. But because of his conflict of interest, he did not contribute to a recommendation to double the Australian eastern jack mackerel catch to 10,000 tonnes.
This has given the single greatest fillip to the Margiris venture. Mr Geen told the National Times the Margiris would take less than 5% of the total stock of small pelagics, as measured by surveys of egg production by the target species.
“I think people are worried about the size of the vessel, but that is really irrelevant,” he said. “It’s the size of the total allowable catch that counts.”
Other advisory committee members pointed to the ecological impact on existing fishers of taking so much of the small pelagics, even though these catches are outside state waters.
A coalition of global, national and state environment groups has written to Fisheries Minister Joe Ludwig, calling for the Margiris to be banned.
Right now it’s moored in the Netherlands, and Greenpeace is keeping an eye on its movements. Watch this space.’
.
..didn’t have to wait long..
Greenpeace in The Netherlands: ‘Stop Exporting Overcapacity’
.
On 28th June 2012, Greenpeace activists in the Netherlands attached themselves to the mooring ropes and chained the ship’s propellers of the super trawler FV Margiris, to delay its journey to Australia to serve Seafish Tasmania’s plans to overfish 18,000 toinnes of pelagic fish.
Greenpeace spokesman Nathanial Pelle said:
“Really this is to demonstrate that the European Commission, which has committed to reducing its capacity, shouldn’t be allowed to ship its oversized fleet off to other fisheries around the world and that goes for Australia as well.”
“The MAC noted some concerns raised in relation to the proposed TAC for jack mackerel (east) suggested that a super trawler might also have differential impacts on the stock and ecosystem.”
~ South East Management Advisory Committee (MAC) Chairman Steve McCormack noted.
.
Of Course the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) celebrated Seafish Australia’s strategy as “A Shot In The Arm For Tassie Economy” , given that the MUA is only narrowly self-interested in its members. MUA Assistant National Secretary, Ian Bray, said the news of new jobs was welcome.
“This initiative is welcome news for Tasmania’s seafarers and maritime workers”, Mr Bray said. “This is just the kind of development the Tasmanian economy needs. We’re pleased that there will be new jobs for Tasmanians”, Mr Hill said.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman has written to me outlining his findings in response to my complaint that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) erred when setting the quota relevant to the super trawler Margiris.
The Ombudsman found that AFMA did not follow the law when the South East Management Advisory Committee finalised its recommendation for the quota relevant to the super trawler.
In particular the Ombudsman found that one of the members of that committee had a financial conflict of interest but was allowed to remain in, and contribute to, discussions about the quota.
As a direct result of the Ombudsman’s investigation AFMA has undertaken remedial and corrective steps to address the substantive issues arising from my complaint.
The Ombudsman has also forwarded material to the Federal Government’s review of fisheries legislation.
Seafish Tasmania has responded by attacking the Ombudsman which is clearly a case of attacking the messenger who found very serious problems with fisheries management in Australia.
Seafish claims the Ombudsman “had completed the investigation and found nothing to report’’. In fact the Ombudsman’s letter to me of 18 December 2012 outlining the results of the inquiry runs to four pages and includes the findings “processes relating to a scheduled meeting of the South East Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC) on 26 March 2012 were not in accordance with legislative requirement’’ and that the “conflicted SPFRAG [Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group] members did not seek approval to remain at, and participate in, group deliberations after declaring the conflict [of interest]’’.
In other words my complaint to the Ombudsman that AFMA did not follow proper process when it set the quota relevant to the Margiris has been upheld.
Seafish claims I didn’t release the letter because it didn’t suit my “agenda’’. In fact I decided not to release the letter during the Christmas/New Year holiday period because it was simply too important a document to bury during the holiday period and subsequent bushfire emergency. Moreover I did hand the letter to the Mercury newspaper this morning, well before Seafish issued its media release.
Seafish notes the Ombudsman’s report (which it claims to have not seen) offers no comment on Director Gerry Geen or Seafish itself. But in fact Mr Geen is well known as being the relevant member of SEMAC and SPFRAG.
Seafish claims my comments last year about the Ombudsman investigating “other matters’’ was some kind of beat up. But in fact it was the Ombudsman who
referred to other matters being under investigation and the Ombudsman’s letter to me does in fact address other issues, and in particular the conflict of interest and communications difficulties associated with the SPFRAG.
Seafish Tasmania claims there is now no question mark over the quota relevant to the Margiris. But in fact all the Ombudsman says is that “it does not necessarily follow that errors in the SEMAC process operate to invalidate the TAC [Total Allowable Catch]’’ and goes on to note the review of fisheries legislation which is still ongoing.
That there were at least very serious problems within AFMA is beyond question for all, it seems, other than Seafish Tasmania. The Federal Government has already identified the need for a roots and branch review of fisheries legislation and the Ombudsman’s letter to me lists 11 AFMA actions as a result of my complaint.
Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas)
Also known as Green Turtle, Black (sea) Turtle, or Pacific Green Turtle and can be found on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.
The species is listed as ‘Endangered‘ by the IUCN and CITES and is protected from exploitation in most countries where it is illegal to collect, harm or kill them.
.
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is one of the world’s seven natural wonders. It is the world’s largest reef system stretching over 2,600 kilometres from Lady Elliot Island off Gladstone Harbour up to the top of Cape York Peninsula at the Torres Strait.
The Great Barrier Reef has 411 types of hard coral, comprises 900 islands and 2,900 individual coral reefs as well as many cays and lagoons . It is a natural sanctuary for 36 species of marine mammals including whales, dolphins and porpoises, some 1500 fish species, 134 species of sharks and rays, 4,000 types of mollusc and is home to 215 species of birds either migrating, nesting or roosting on the islands.
The Reef and associated beaches provide vital habitat home to six species of sea turtles which swim vast distances to the reef to breed including the Green Sea Turtle. Both the Green Sea Turtle and the unusual Dugong are species particularly threatened with extinction due to Aboriginal Poaching and associated non-traditional commercial exploitation.
Dugong (Dugong dugon) feeding on Sea Grass Meadows
(Photo by Barry Ingham)
.
Dugongs?
.
Dugongs were hunted toward extinction by European colonists during the 19th Century for their meat and oil.
Most Dugongs now live in the northern waters of Australia between Shark Bay and Moreton Bay particularly in the Torres Strait and along the Grest Barrier Reef. Ongoing ‘traditional’ hunting is driving populations close to extinction. Consequently the IUCN lists Dugongs as ‘Vulnerable‘ to extinction, while the CITES limits or bans the trade of derived products.
Australian Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders ignore this and continue to poach Dugongs for non-traditional commercial exploitation. ^Read about Dugongs
.
In 1981, The Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the UNESCO’s World Heritage List under all four natural World Heritage criteria for its outstanding universal value:
Outstanding example representing a major stage of the Earth’s evolutionary history
Outstanding example representing significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man’s interaction with his natural environment
Contains unique, rare and superlative natural phenomena, formations and features and areas of exceptional natural beauty
Provide habitats where populations of rare and endangered species of plants and animals still survive
.
The IUCN-protected Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is 345,000 square kilometres in size; five times the size of Tasmania or larger that the United Kingdom and Ireland combined!
As scientists have become to understand more about the Reef’s complex ecosystem, they have discovered that damaging fishing practices, pollution and coral bleaching exacerbated by increased sea temperatures due to global warming are compounding to jeopardise the Reef’s future.
.
The ecological protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is delegated by the IUCN to the safe custody and sovereignty of the Australian Government, currently under the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke MP. The management task in turn has delegated the responsibility to The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority guided by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cwlth), which is headquartered in Townsville and with regional offices in Cairns, Mackay, Rockhampton and Canberra.
.
“The Great Barrier Reef is internationally recognised for its outstanding biodiversity. The World Heritage status of the Reef recognises its great diversity of species and habitats. Conserving the Reef’s biodiversity is not just desirable – it is essential. By protecting biodiversity, we are protecting our future and our children’s future.”
Because of the Reef’s magnificent biodiversity, diving on the Reef is very popular
(Diver with Green Sea Turtle)
Tourism Australia promotes the Reef thus:
.
‘Once you’ve experienced the Great Barrier Reef you will know why it is one of the seven wonders of the natural world. Diving and snorkelling are a must. Stay at a one of the many heavenly island resorts. Charter a yacht and sail The Whitsundays. Find your own uninhabited island. Where else in the world can you find a beach where the only footprints in the sand are your own.
There are hundreds of dreamy islands and coral atolls on the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef, so take your pick. Luxury lovers and honeymooners will be in heaven on Lizard Island, exclusive Bedarra or privately-owned Double and Haggerstone Islands. For a wilderness experience, bush camp on Fitzroy Island or trek the Thorsborne Trail along mist-cloaked Hinchinbrook Island. Day trip to Green and Fitzroy Islands, snorkel the brilliant coral reefs of the Low Isles or sea kayak around Snapper Island, Hope Islands National Park with an Aboriginal guide. Townsville, Port Douglas and Lucinda are just some of the mainland gateways.’
.
And at the northern tip of the Reef, Cape York and the Torres Strait Islands are promoted thus:
.
‘Sitting just north of Cape York, between Australia and Papua New Guinea, the Torres Strait Islands are made up of 274 small islands, only 17 of which are inhabited. These communities have developed a unique blend of Melanesian and Australian Aboriginal cultures. Get a glimpse with a trip to Thursday or Horn Island, the group’s most developed islands. Learn about the local pearling and fishing industry on Thursday island, reached by ferry from Cape York. Visit the museum, art gallery and historic World War II sites on Horn Island, accessible by flight. Both islands are blessed with pristine beaches, azure waters and vivid fringing reefs supporting dugongs and sea turtles.’
Australia’s disturbing reality on The Reef and at Cape York
There are thousands of native Sea Turtles dying on our Great Barrier Reef as a result of:
Water Pollution from sewage and stormwater
Water pollution and farm pestidices, herbicides and fertilisers
Damaging Fishing Practices
Illegal Poaching
Cyclones and Flooding
Tredging of Gladstone Harbour and associated coastal Industrial Development
Bulk Cargo Ships leaking contaminants
Gladstone Harbour dredging in 2011-12 by the Gladstone Ports Corporation and LNG
..continues to muddy Barrier Reef habitat and destroy Sea Grass Meadows critical to Sea Turtkes and Dungongs
.
The recent Queensland floods and cyclones have starkly shown the impacts of water pollution on the marine environment. Pesticide and mud pollution from out-dated farming practices has led to a massive spike in Dugong and Sea Turtle deaths.
In addition, poor fishing practices can still kill too many of our Sea Turtles and Dugongs, and industrial development is proliferating along the coast and removing remaining habitats, such as Sea Grass Meadows that Sea Turtles and Dugongs depend on for their survival.
Over the past 12 months, more than 1,400 turtles and 180 dugongs have washed up on our beaches. Clearly our Reef is under enormous pressure and our wildlife is suffering.
The Great Barrier Reef is a World Heritage global icon and something that Queenslanders are proud to be the custodians of. It is unacceptable to many of us that the Reef would be under this amount of pressure. We’re not alone in these concerns – UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee also expressed serious concern recently about the long-term health of the Great Barrier Reef.
Oil is seen next to the 230-metre bulk coal carrier Shen Neng I about 70 kilometres east of Great Keppel Island, 20100404.
“damage to the reef is significant, with large parts of Douglas Shoal “completely flattened” and marine life “pulverised”.(Maritime Safety Queensland/Reuters)
.
‘130 turtles stranded this year‘
.
‘The Scientific Advisory Committee has been charged with the task of investigating this year’s spate of marine animal deaths in Gladstone Harbour.
Responding to calls for all results to be made public, the environment minister’s office provided the following data:
130 turtle strandings were reported; 11 of those were released or in rehabilitation
Of 119 turtles found dead in the harbour this year, only 24 had autopsies conducted
.
Of those 24 turtles, 13 were identified as dying from human activity (11 boat strikes and two undetermined); 11 were identified as dying from natural causes (10 from ill health and disease and one undetermined).
Eight Dugongs have been found dead. One was killed by boat strike and one from netting. The remaining six were too badly decomposed for autopsies.
Five Dolphin deaths were reported. One was caused by unspecified human activity. The remaining four were too decomposed.
Because floods damaged seagrass levels, marine animals are more vulnerable to human activity.’
This dead dugong was found on Witt Island by Clive Last (July 2011) who is increasing worried by marine animal deaths in Gladstone Harbour (Great Barrier Reef).
.
‘Another dead Dugong has been found in Gladstone Harbour, and the man who found it wants some answers.
Clive Last, who in May discovered a dead dolphin on Turtle Island, was shocked on Friday afternoon when he found the body of a dead Dugong on Witt Island.
Mr Last is wary of suggestions marine animal deaths this year can be attributed to boat strikes and net fishing. He said those explanations didn’t match his observations on the harbour.
“I honestly believe it’s either starvation (from damaged seagrass meadows) or there is something in the harbour,” Mr Last said. “Right now, Turtles and Dugongs are continually coming up. That means there is (something) going on.”
He believed the Dolphin he found in May had no injuries to indicate it had been killed by boat strike or fishing nets.
The Department of Environment and Resource Management reported the Dolphin’s body was too decomposed to conduct a necropsy.
Mr Last said, once again, the dead Dugong’s body showed no sign of injury. He took five photos and called Queensland Parks and Wildlife.
Mr Last, whose work requires him to spend a lot of time on the harbour, is increasingly disturbed by the trend of dead marine animals in Gladstone Harbour.
“If I don’t see another one after today, I’ll be very happy,” he said. “I’d also be very happy if someone would come up with the truth about what is really killing them. “You can’t keep saying it’s boat strike, when I’ve got photos showing it’s not boat strike.”
Mr Last said he was worried the scientific advisory committee’s investigation into the deaths in Gladstone Harbour would take too long to come up with results.
DERM (Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management) could not be contacted over the weekend.
The list goes on:
The dead Dugong found on Witt Island was the latest in a long, mysterious list of marine animal deaths this year.
Three dead Dolphins were found in Gladstone Harbour in May, within two weeks of each other.
The latest discovery is the fourth Dugong found dead in the harbour since May
More than 40 Turtles have washed up dead in the harbour since April. The Turtle deaths have been the subject of intense debate between environmentalists and commercial fishermen.
Marine experts from various organisations have told The Observer seagrass levels, damaged by the floods, are putting stress on the animals.
.
“LNG will deliver billions of Australian Dollars to be shipped overseas as profit we will be left with the rotting carcasses of dead dugongs, poisoned water tables, destroyed farmland and a bill for the infrastructure the council builds for them.”
~ Comment by Chris Norman from Agnes Waters (July 2011)
Heinous cruelty as Aborigines hack live pregnant Green Sea Turtle
.
There’s tension in far north Queensland between Traditional Hunting rights (Ed: read ‘perversion’) and the protection of Turtles and Dugongs, and it is resulting in some horrific treatment of native animals.
Transcript from ABC Broadcast (extracts of video added):
.
CHRIS UHLMANN, PRESENTER: Protected Dugongs and Sea Turtles are being cruelly slaughtered in Queensland’s Torres Strait to supply an illegal meat trade.
Tranquil coastal tip of Cape York Peninsula and the Torres Strait
.
An investigation by 7.30 has found deeply confronting footage that we are about to air. It shows the brutal methods used to hunt the animals, with turtles being butchered alive and dugongs drowned as they’re dragged behind boats.
The investigation throws into sharp relief the conflict between Indigenous Australians and animal rights activists over traditional hunting and exposes a black market in animal meat.
And a warning: this report by Sarah Dingle and producer Lesley Robinson contains disturbing images and coarse language.
SARAH DINGLE, REPORTER: At the northern-most tip of Australia lie the serene islands and waters of Queensland’s Torres Strait, the birthplace of Native Title. But on those beaches, there’s a slaughter underway.
7.30 travelled to far North Queensland where IT entrepreneur turned eco warrior Rupert Imhoff has been investigating the fate of threatened turtle and dugong populations. And what he found is shocking. A turtle lies tethered for up to three days, waiting to die.
Green Sea Turtles are routinely tethered by rope by local Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander men in the shallows, then inverted on to their backs so that they tire from struggling and often drown.
.
RUPERT IMHOFF, ECO WARRIOR: They dragged it out of the water, flipped it on its back. You could see it was already terrorised. It was flapping around madly. And they came up with this concrete block and basically tried to slam it in the head, obviously to stun the animal. Didn’t quite work.
Man uses a concrete block and throws it twice at the Turtles headbut the female Turtle continues to flap. She has no voice.
.
SARAH DINGLE: The images become even more confronting.
RUPERT IMHOFF: Before they started hacking off its fins, they wanted to check if it was pregnant, and sure enough this turtle was a mature aged turtle. Had up to 125 eggs in it. It was gonna be the next generation of turtles, but they decided to cut it up right there and then.
Aboriginal man knifes into the womb of the female Turtle to see it if pregnant – she is.
.
SARAH DINGLE: Even as it’s hacked, the turtle clings to life, apparently in agony for seven and a half minutes.
The man then starts hacking into the live healthy TurtleLeft flipper already hacked off, the still live turtle has its right flipper hacked off, while the men keep it helplessly lying on its back
.
RUPERT IMHOFF: Didn’t actually die until they took off the bottom shell, they actually peeled off the shell and then it just let out one gasp – one last gasp of air and passed away.
SARAH DINGLE: Using a hidden camera, Rupert Imhoff spent two weeks in the Torres Strait filming the hunting of sea turtle and dugong which are both listed as vulnerable to extinction.
RUPERT IMHOFF: They go out, they spear them at sea, they then tie the tail to the back of the boat and they hold the head underwater. And it can take up to seven and a half minutes again, so I’ve been told, for that dugong to drown.
Speared Dugong, still alive is tied by the tail fin to the side of the boat so it drowns as the boat returns to shore
.
SARAH DINGLE: Here, a Dugong is methodically carved up for consumption. For anyone else, this kill would be illegal, as dugong are protected under federal law. However, the Native Title Act allows traditional owners to hunt to satisfy their personal, domestic or non-commercial communal needs.
Anywhere in Australia, this horrific cruelty would be will illegal. But in Queensland alone, Native Title hunting is exempt from animal cruelty laws. Animal rights activists are appalled.
Lawyer Rebecca Smith was a paid consultant on the turtle and dugong hunt for the Torres Strait Regional Authority.
REBECCA SMITH, LAWYER: Most conservation groups won’t touch this issue. It’s just too hard, too prickly, too sensitive. It’s often deemed – people who are opposed to traditional hunting are often called racist, but there’s nothing racist about saying, “This is cruel. We’ll move on from there. We’ll do this humanely now. We’ve progressed.”
SARAH DINGLE: Aerial surveys of dugong and turtle numbers are imperfect and no-one knows exactly how many there are. Green sea turtles face an extra pressure. They’re by far the turtle species most intensively hunted for their meat. But locals say there are bigger threats for turtle and dugong.
???: You know we are under threat from pig predation, our – one of the greatest, biggest rookeries in the Southern Hemisphere on Cape York, Rain Island, is under threat from climate change, but we seem to be concentrating I think far too much on, you know, Indigenous people hunting them.
SARAH DINGLE: What is known is that the Great Barrier Reef is a last stronghold. It’s home to the biggest sea turtle rookery in the globe and one of the world’s largest population of dugong.
Cairns-based Colin Riddell calls himself “The Dugong Man”. A former abattoir worker, he’s an unlikely but tireless campaigner for animal rights.
COLIN RIDDELL, ANIMAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGNER: I have to pursue it to the end because otherwise the end may be for the animals.
SARAH DINGLE: Colin Riddell’s investigations have revealed the slaughter goes on far to the south in coastal Queensland waters.
Green Island is one of the jewels in the crown of Cairns tourism. We’ve been told just last week at this spot Indigenous hunters chased down and took a green sea turtle in full view of shocked tourists. There’s no way of knowing where those hunters came from, but locals say this is a weekly occurrence on this island.
STEVE DAVIES, TOUR OPERATOR: They can be out there a lot, you know – three, four, five times a week. They come across in quite large tinnies with large outboard motors on board and they chase the turtles till they’re completely and utterly exhausted.
SARAH DINGLE: The culture clash between hunters and tourists has led to heated confrontations.
INDIGENOUS HUNTER (Amateur video): This our land! We don’t list end to your shit, mate! We can do anything on this land we wanna do, mate!
SARAH DINGLE: This video was shot two weeks ago by a tourist and given to 7.30. It shows an allocation between a tour boat and three Indigenous hunters.
INDIGENOUS HUNTER (Amateur video): Ya just don’t tell us what to do on our land! You’re not from this f***in’ land; we are! We’re the traditional owner! We own every f***in’ reef around here, mate!
SARAH DINGLE: It’s not clear what they’re hunting for, but there’s no mistaking the tensions.
INDIGENOUS HUNTER (Amateur video): You f*** off back to your country. This is my country, c***.
SARAH DINGLE: Is there a sense in your area that the Indigenous hunters are untouchable?
STEVE DAVIES: Without a doubt. And they believe they’re untouchable.
SARAH DINGLE: But there are conservation efforts.
Well away from the glitzy marinas and the tourist strip, here in the industrial area of Cairns is the town’s only turtle rehabilitation centre. It’s run on the smell of an oily rag. Here, injured and starving turtles are treated and brought back to full health.
Today, Jenny Gilbert and her team are readying a 180 kilogram breeding age female green sea turtle for release. By the look of things, this 80-year-old turtle has already survived a number of hazards.
Turtles like this are being hunted not traditionally, but for a very modern purpose. Our investigations have revealed the hunt is feeding a flourishing black market.
JAMES EPONG, MANDUBARRA LAND & SEA CORP.: Well nine times out 10 the illegal trade is to sell the meat for the benefit – for grog money or drugs.
SARAH DINGLE: And can you can make a buck out of it?
JAMES EPONG: Yes. There’s one person that we know of in Yarrabah made $80,000 one year.
SARAH DINGLE: James Epong is a Mandubarra man who lives on his traditional lands an hour south of Cairns and Yarrabah. The Mandubarra have declared a moratorium on taking turtle and dugong from their see country, but around them, the illegal meat trade continues.
JAMES EPONG: I myself went to a pub on a Friday afternoon to go and have a coldie with one of me mates and was approached by some other Indigenous people with trivac (phonetic spelling) meat for sale, which was turtle and dugong.
SARAH DINGLE: On four separate occasions 7.30 has confirmed multiple eskies arriving on the afternoon flight from Horn Island to Cairns.
RUPERT IMHOFF: I do not know 100 per cent for a fact what was in those eskies, but I have heard numerous reports and been told by the islanders themselves that they are transporting an excessive amount of turtle and dugong down to Cairns. Now on my flight I think there was about six or seven eskies that come off and I’ve been told that it almost a daily routine.
SARAH DINGLE: Indigenous sea rangers are employed and equipped by governments to care for marine wildlife. This esky was addressed to a ranger.
RUPERT IMHOFF: From what I understand and what I observed and what I spoke to the islanders about is the head hunters on all these islands are actually the rangers themselves. Now this money has gone into their pockets. It’s gonna help them buy outboard motors and help them basically go and hunt these turtle and dugong down in bigger numbers.
SARAH DINGLE: Were any of the people you saw hunting and killing animals rangers?
RUPERT IMHOFF: Yes, they were 100 per cent.
SARAH DINGLE: Did you pay those people in your footage to do what they were doing?
RUPERT IMHOFF: We did not pay a single person any money while we were up there.
SARAH DINGLE: And the illegal trade continues further south.
SEITH FOURMILE, CAIRNS TRADITIONAL OWNER: I know that there’s a lot of non-Indigenous people that are doing it as well.
SARAH DINGLE: Are they doing the hunting or are they involved in other way?
SEITH FOURMILE: They’re involved with the trading of it, or selling it and passing it down, and some of the turtle meats has gone far down as Sydney and Melbourne.
SARAH DINGLE: And it’s not just dugong and turtle meat being sold. Traditional owners from Cape York are pushing to end the indiscriminate slaughter and stop the esky trade.
Sea Turtle air freighted from Cairns to Sydney and MelbourneNothing to do with ‘Traditional Hunting’, which is a low-life smokescreen for what it really is: Illegal Wildlife Poaching and Trade for personal commercial profit.
.
FRANKIE DEEMAL, TURTLE AND DUGONG TASKFORCE: We don’t have that kind of legislative assistance to do that. What do you do when you confront a rogue killer?
SARAH DINGLE: And we’ve heard a lotta people talk about rogue killers. Who are these rogue killers?
FRANKIE DEEMAL: They’re there.
SARAH DINGLE: Who are they?
FRANKIE DEEMAL: They know who they are.
SARAH DINGLE: For those with Native Title rights, customs can change.
LOCAL MAN: We’re gonna name this turtle Bumbida (phonetic spelling), after our grandmother.
SARAH DINGLE: But the Mandubarra people at least have sworn to protect these animals.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Sarah Dingle with that report, produced by Lesley Robinson.
And 7.30 contacted the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management. In a statement it said it takes, “the claims very seriously and will investigate all reports of illegal hunting and poaching”.
You can follow the progress of the turtles released in this story by going to the sea turtle satellite tracking page.
Editor’s note: (April 16) the ABC also approached the Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA) several times over the course of a week prior to broadcast but their spokesperson was unavailable for comment.
Watch the entire Documentary aired nationally across Australia in March 2012:
WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS DISTURBING ANIMAL CRUELTY WHICH MAY OFFEND. WE INCLUDE IT TO PORTRAY THE REALITY OF AUSTRALIA’S TREATMENT OF TURTLES AND DUGONGS IN THE NAME OF ‘TRADITIONAL HUNTING’
[Source: ‘Hunting rights hide horror for dugongs, turtles’, by reporters Sarah Dingle and Lesley Robinson, documentary presented by Chris Uhlmann, 730 Programme, 20120308, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ^http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3448943.htm]
.
.
‘Queensland to outlaw Dugong-hunt cruelty’
.
Animal activists have welcomed moves by the Queensland Government to outlaw hunting-related cruelty to dugongs and turtles.
.
‘Under the Native Title Act, traditional owners are allowed to hunt Turtles and Dugongs.’
.
Footage aired on the ABC in March showed animals being butchered alive by some Indigenous hunters and sparked an investigation into the practice.
Queensland Fisheries Minister John McVeigh yesterday introduced legislation into Parliament to outlaw any unreasonable pain being inflicted during hunting.
The RSPCA’s Michael Beatty says the Government should be commended.
“No-one thinks – including the Indigenous leaders – that this type of cruelty, if you like, is necessary,” he said.
Mr Beatty says authorities need to continue to work with traditional owners. “It isn’t simply a case of just outlawing it, it really isn’t that simple because obviously it has to be policed as well,” he said.
But animal activist Colin Riddell says the hunting should be banned altogether. “People flock to Australia to see our Great Barrier Reef and see those beautiful animals and I fear for the day that my children, your children don’t get to see those animals,” he said.
Native title hunting rights would not be extinguished by the Bill.’
But this heinous cruelty by Indigenous Australians has long been know by the Australian Government..
.
Back in 2011: ‘Call for inquiry into marine animal poaching‘
.
The Federal Opposition has called for a judicial inquiry into Dugong and Turtle poaching in far north Queensland. Tourism operators say tourists have been exposed to mutilated and slaughtered turtles on island beaches, off Cairns. Four far north Queensland Liberal National Party (LNP) candidates say they want that stopped at key tourism sites.
Pictures of a mutilated turtle found on Green Island by tourists at the weekend have prompted public outrage. The animals are legally protected but the Native Title Act allows for hunting by traditional owners.
But Federal Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt says legal hunting is not the problem.
“The advice we have from Indigenous leaders is that the vast bulk of hunting is poaching,” he said. Mr Hunt says inaction on poaching is causing problems.
“There really has to be a crackdown on poaching,” he said. “The vast bulk of the take of Turtle and Dugong is coming from poaching. “There is a trade in illegally obtained meat and animal product. “This is a complete breach of the law.”
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is investigating the issue.
Back in 2010: ‘Cairns Turtle and Dugong activist campaigns against slaughter caught on video’
.
Former union activist turned environmental defender Colin Ridell, who counts Bob Irwin, John Mackenzie, Derryn Hinch and Greg Hunt MP among his loyal following, says the silence is deafening from the government to stop slaughter of turtles on the waters around Cairns.
Riddell is campaigning to reduce the taking of turtle and dugong, that is occurring under the protection of Native Title, until a complete scientific study is done to determine the actual numbers to be taken.
“It will be tightly controlled by the EPA and the elders with a permit system, that is monitored by special investigators. I and other indigenous elders support a moratorium to determine the take,” Riddell says. “The skulls of each to be kept to determine actual permitted numbers taken, as is done in other permit systems.”
He says that any breach would carry a substantial penalty, however advocates a complete ban in green zones, like all our coastal tourist areas. “I don’t want international tourists and interstate visitors to take home horror stories.”
The campaign follows the leaking of a graphic video showing a turtle having its flippers hacked off while still alive. RSPCA Queensland has called for a review of traditional hunting.
“It’s just not good enough, this is a violent and obscene way to treat these animals, ” Cairns resident Colin Riddell told CairnsBlog. “Any indigenous person is allowed to kill sea turtles and dugongs for weddings or funerals, but it has far beyond that, and is being commercially moved around the state.
“I don’t want international tourists and interstate visitors to take back horror stories home,” he says Riddell, who has taken his campaign to every State and Federal Government minister.
“I’ve written to the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships who have acknowledged my letter,” Riddell says. “The replied thanking me for me letter and said it ‘will be actioned as appropriate.’ However I have received no response,” he says.
Riddell has also wrote to Greg Combet for support, who he engaged with as a Manufacturing Workers Union site convener at the Australian Defence Industries Benalla plant. He says that Environment Minister Peter Garrett has also given him the “bum’s rush.”
“I received a response from the ‘Parliamentary Clearance Officer’ however it was totally unsatisfactory,” Riddell said. “I told them to get my message Peter Garrett, which was a direct result of Jim Turnour’s and Peter Garrett staffers. Weak efforts.”
Another response from the International Whaling Commission fell on deaf ears. “I asked them why we condemn Japan when Australians do the same,” Colin Riddell said. Julie Creek, responded. “Your message was deleted without being read.”
The original poster of the graphic video says that it’s fair enough if you have to kill turtles because it is a “traditional right” but who cuts the leg of a cow first and let it die in its own blood?
“No one is going to starve in Australia because we stop the killing of turtles. Australia earns millions of dollars with the tourism industry – with tourists who come to dive with turtles and in the same country we torture the turtles to death,” the anonymous poster wrote. “Species will vanish forever and in the end it does not matter whose fault it was. This is not a question of human races this is a question of respect and ethics towards other creatures.”
Colin Riddell and the RSPCA are trying to track down who shot the video and where it was taken, so they can investigate the incident. It is believed it was filmed in North Queensland mid last year.
.
“Until now cruelty to animals using traditional hunting methods has been put in the too hard basket by governments.”
.
Mark Townend of the RSPCA said. “Far from it, he said. We have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island elders who support us on this issue.
.
“Hunting from tinnies with rifles is not traditional.”
.
“We’re committed to ensuring that any breaches of the Animal Care and Protection Act are fully investigated while at the same time taking into consideration traditional hunting rights,” RSPCA chief inspector Michael Pecic says. “We can’t do this alone. We’re a charity and yet it appears we’re the only organisation that is taking this matter seriously.”
“We have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island elders who support us on this issue,” Riddell says. “Hunting from tinnies with rifles is not traditional. Leaving turtles and dugongs to be butchered alive and left to die on the beach is not traditional. We’re not attacking the indigenous community. This is simply not an appropriate way to kill these animals.”
James Epong, son of an aboriginal elder says that Ma:mu traditional owners have a right to hunt for protected species such as dugong and marine turtles that is recognised by Australian Law.
“Our Ma:mu traditional owners, who are also called the Mandubarra mob, have put aside some of these rights and signed a Traditional Use Marine Resource Agreement so they can protect rather that exploit dugong and marine turtles,” James Epong says.
The agreement for their turtle business is co-ordinated through the Mandubarra Land and Sea Corporation and was finalised in June 2008.
“I am very proud to see that Ma:mu traditional owners are prepared to sacrifice rights and traditions, for the sake of helping threatened turtle and dugong stocks recover,” Epong says. “Keep in mind the Ma:mu people are setting aside hunting and cultural practices that go back tens of thousands of years for the future benefit of all Australians.”
In 1996, a landmark High Court decision concerned with particular pastoral titles, was passed regarding Native Title hunting rights. The decision did not allow anyone simply to claim Indigenous links and then hunt and kill native animals anywhere in Queensland. It authorised any legitimate native title holder to hunt and kill for genuine sustenance and other needs and without first obtaining a licence, but only in areas over which native title is held by that group.
The decision did not allow native title owners to trap or kill wildlife for commercial purposes, however Colin Riddell says that this is occurring. “These area being transported through the Cairns Airport in Eskys,” he says.
Riddell says on his website that the 1996 decision says nothing one way or the other about using modern weapons like guns and powered boats to undertake traditional hunting. It is interesting that the use of harpoons, outboard-powered boats, and steel axes to kill the crocodiles as an exercise of native title hunting rights.
“It seemed to concern nobody on the High Court bench, with the possible exception of Justice Callinan. Followers of native title developments need to keep in mind the distinction between exercising an established native right in a modern way, as in the Yanner case, and the loss or abandonment of traditional and established native title rights themselves, as found by the trial judge to be a fatal flaw in the Yorta Yorta decision.”
.
Commercial Exploitation of Hunting and Fishing Rights
This issue, namely the extent to which the holders of native title may exercise the relevant rights in a “modern” fashion, and indeed the connected issue of whether they might even commercially exploit those rights, are difficult ones. Whilst not directly in issue in the Yanner case, these issues are of considerable importance in the broader scheme of Australian native title law – and are yet to be answered conclusively.
Some important developments in this area are taking place in Canada. In the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1997 decision in Delgamuukw v British Columbia, the majority judges noted that, while the rights of Indigenous title holders in that jurisdiction are not limited to engagement in activities which are aspects of practices, customs, and traditions integral to the claimant group’s distinctive Indigenous culture, lands held by Aboriginal title cannot be used in a manner that is irreconcilable with the nature of the claimants’ attachment to those lands.
So, for example, tribal hunting areas may not be “strip mined” or, so it would seem, “hunted out” or “fished out” in a large-scale commercial operation. Contrast this with small-scale trading between local Indigenous people and others, for which there is some historical and anthropological evidence in Australia and elsewhere.
There are important legal differences between the doctrines of Aboriginal title in Canada and Australia, but there are also some important similarities which indicate that these Canadian developments might in the future be of relevance in Australia. Of course, it is also important in Australia to note that the Commonwealth Native Title Act moderates but does not destroy the capacity of the States and Territories to regulate the exercise of native title rights along with other rights, as in fishing, conservation, and safety legislation which might apply equally to Indigenous and non-Indigenous people alike.
“Jim Turnour says this is a racial issue,” Colin Riddell says. “You know, I’m disgruntled as well. You know what I do. I tell you what, I’m begging people to vote for Warren Entsch in and get rid of Jimmy,” he says.
See the shocking video here…
WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS DISTURBING ANIMAL CRUELTY WHICH MAY OFFEND. WE INCLUDE IT TO PORTRAY THE REALITY OF AUSTRALIA’S TREATMENT OF TURTLES AND DUGONGS IN THE NAME OF ‘TRADITIONAL HUNTING’
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has been aware, so is complicit, immoral, incompetent and so entire Board should now be immediately sacked, and any government employee (rangers or otherwise found to have been in anyway involved with the killing of Dungongs or Turtles or trading in their body parts.
The killing of Dungongs or Turtles in Australia is to be immediately policed and investigated jointly by the Australian Government, whatever the causes of the deaths
The Australian Government needs to amend Australia’s Native Title Act 1993 and Australian Crimes Act 1914 to make any cruelty toward any wildlife in Australia and its territories a criminal act under Australian Crimes Act. Traditional Hunting that involves cruelty is to be outlawed. It is Commercial Exploitation of Traditional Hunting and Fishing Rights.
“It could take 20 years or more for the Great Barrier Reef to recover from three kilometres of destruction caused by the grounding of a Chinese coal ship, authorities have revealed. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority says the damage to the reef is significant, with large parts of Douglas Shoal “completely flattened” and marine life “pulverised”.
Australia’s Wildlife Hate
(Photo by Peter Culley taken on a backroad to Goolwa, Currency Creek, South Australia.)
.
Peter’s comments:
‘An Australian icon…I was taken by the colours, textures and moronic behaviour of the idiot/s who did this in the first place… For instance there was evidence they had initially fired the first shot at a further distance but not satisfied with that they moved closer… There was a very good chance they were peppered by numerous richochets… candidates for the Darwin Awards…It’s always the minority that ruin it for others…’
.
.
The following article was initially written by Tigerquoll entitled ‘Animal abuse inculcates social deviance‘ and published on CanDoBetter.net 20100403.
Posted April 3rd, 2010 by Tigerquoll. Additional material has been added.
.
On 29-Mar-2010, Chris Palmer, the self-confessed serial roo shooter on CanDoBetter wrote:
“My son is an up and coming roo shooter to at the age of 4 he can skin and gut a roo nearly as quick as me and over the last 4 weekends he has shoot over 50 roos with only 8 misses they still didnt get away tho like always dad was there to clean up the mess.”
Clearly, this individual values his behaviour of slaughtering kangaroos acceptable to the extent he is inculcating in his young son his same values, attitudes and practices from an early age. Shooting wildlife is a violent crime against the natural animal kingdom. We are not savages anymore. We don’t have to kill wild animals. It is a choice and an immoral act. Clean kills are wrong but also occasional. The suffering death of a bullet injury by a 4 year old followed up with a knife or blunt axe to the joey reflects a vicious and depraved existence.
Orphaned kangaroo ‘joey’
.
Cruelty Connections
.
‘According to a 1997 study done by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Northeastern University, animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes than are individuals without a history of animal abuse.
There’s something uniquely sickening about cases of animal abuse that outrages the community more than most crimes. To hear of a defenceless creature being brutalised by a cowardly attacker can get the blood of even the gentlest soul boiling.
Serial killer Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer from Wisconsin (USA) started on animals before moving on to humans.
Dahmer murdered 17 men and boys between 1978 and 1991. His murders involved rape, dismemberment, necrophilia and cannibalism.
In his childood he had put dogs heads on stakes.
(Photo: AP)
.
This week we learnt of the shocking case of Snowy, a much loved family pet suffering horrific injuries at the hands of a torturer. The 18-month-old cat’s ears were mutilated and he had been set alight. Also this week charges against the man believed to have tortured Buckley, a puppy who had his ears and tail hacked off, were dropped amid fears that the case would not stand up in court.
In recent months there have been multiple cases of animals being tortured and killed in a trend that appears to be Australia wide. It seems no animal is immune from such callous attacks; pets, wildlife, even dolphins have been targeted by individuals who derive some sort of thrill from inflicting pain on an innocent creature. Despite the increasingly violent and sadistic nature of these attacks and the public’s growing disgust, offenders if caught can expect little more than a slap on the wrist.
More often than not these cases don’t reach the courts but the few that do demonstrate our judicial system’s failure to treat animal abuse as a serious offence. Magistrates can impose jail terms of up to 5 years but it is extremely rare for a custodial sentence to be handed down in an animal abuse case. Despite extensive evidence linking cruelty to animals to serious violent offences against people, the judiciary continue to treat such crimes as largely trivial matters.
If our system is designed to punish as well as prevent serious criminal offences then surely greater attention needs to be paid to those who mistreat animals, particularly those who torture and kill for fun. The direct relationship between animal abuse and violent crime has been recognised by the FBI since the 1970s. Many of the world’s most notorious killers have long histories of animal abuse; Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz, Edmund Kemper and Albert DeSalvo better known as the Boston Strangler were all fond of torturing animals. In Australia murderers such as Paul Charles Denyer, Robert Barrett and Ivan Milat are known to have tortured animals long before they started killing people.
What greater motivation do our legislators and Courts need to treat animal cruelty with the utmost seriousness? Simply cautioning offenders is not good enough.
In the US, there has been a growing trend towards toughening laws to make animal abuse a felony rather than a misdemeanour. Penalties for individuals who engage in deliberate animal cruelty have been increased, dramatically in some states. England has similarly strengthened its animal welfare laws but in Australia we continue to treat these heinous crimes as minor offences not worthy of lengthy custodial sentences despite profilers and psychologists telling us that one of the strongest precursors to violent crime including murder is a history of animal abuse. Tough penalties including incarceration must be handed down for serious animal abuse cases.
You don’t need to be a psychologist to work out that only a uniquely depraved individual could ignore the agonised cries of a defenceless animal and continue the ghastly business of inflicting maximum pain and suffering.
To allow such cruel and sadistic behaviour to go unpunished is not only morally reprehensible, it may very well have dire consequences when at some point these offenders turn their particular brand of rage and fury on the rest of us.’
‘Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last twenty-five years have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty.‘
The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s, when its analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most had killed or tortured animals as children. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of more common forms of violence, including child abuse, spouse abuse, and elder abuse. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder.
The line separating an animal abuser from someone capable of committing human abuse is much finer than most people care to consider. People abuse animals for the same reasons they abuse people. Some of them will stop with animals, but enough have been proven to continue on to commit violent crimes to people that it’s worth paying attention to.
Virtually every serious violent offender has a history of animal abuse in their past, and since there’s no way to know which animal abuser is going to continue on to commit violent human crimes, they should ALL be taken that seriously. FBI Supervisory Special Agent Allen Brantley was quoted as saying
“Animal cruelty… is not a harmless venting of emotion in a healthy individual; this is a warning sign…” It should be looked at as exactly that. Its a clear indicator of psychological issues that can and often DO lead to more violent human crimes.
“So much of animal cruelty… is really about power or control,” Lockwood said. Often, aggression starts with a real or perceived injustice. The person feels powerless and develops a warped sense of self-respect. Eventually they feel strong only by being able to dominate a person or animal.
Sometimes, young children and those with developmental disabilities who harm animals don’t understand what they’re doing, Lockwood said. And animal hoarding – the practice of keeping dozens of animals in deplorable conditions – often is a symptom of a greater mental illness, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Just as in situations of other types of abuse, a victim of abuse often becomes a perpetrator.
According to Lockwood, when women abuse animals, they “almost always have a history of victimization themselves. That’s where a lot of that rage comes from.”
In domestic violence situations, women are often afraid to leave the home out of fear the abuser will harm the family pet, which has lead to the creation of Animal Safehouse programs, which provide foster care for the pets of victims in domestic violence situations, empowering them to leave the abusive situation and get help.
.
“A significant amount of data, both anecdotal and empirical, show that animals are often killed or harmed to intimidate, frighten or control others including battered women or abused children.”
Whether a teenager shoots a cat without provocation or an elderly woman is hoarding 200 cats in her home, “both are exhibiting mental health issues…but need very different kinds of attention,” Lockwood said.
Those who abuse animals for no obvious reason, Lockwood said, are “budding psychopaths.” They have no empathy and only see the world as what it’s going to do for them.
History is full of high-profile examples of this connection:
Patrick Sherrill, who killed 14 coworkers at a post office and then shot himself, had a history of stealing local pets and allowing his own dog to attack and mutilate them.
Earl Kenneth Shriner, who raped, stabbed, and mutilated a 7-year-old boy, had been widely known in his neighborhood as the man who put firecrackers in dogs? rectums and strung up cats.
Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a San Diego school, killing two children and injuring nine others, had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often by setting their tails on fire.
Albert DeSalvo, the “Boston Strangler” who killed 13 women, trapped dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows through the boxes in his youth.
Carroll Edward Cole, executed for five of the 35 murders of which he was accused, said his first act of violence as a child was to strangle a puppy.
In 1987, three Missouri high school students were charged with the beating death of a classmate. They had histories of repeated acts of animal mutilation starting several years earlier. One confessed that he had killed so many cats he’d lost count. Two brothers who murdered their parents had previously told classmates that they had decapitated a cat.
Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer had impaled dogs’ heads, frogs, and cats on sticks.
More recently, high school killers such as 15-year-old Kip Kinkel in Springfield, Oregon, and Luke Woodham, 16, in Pearl, Missouri, tortured animals before embarking on shooting sprees. Columbine High School students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who shot and killed 12 classmates before turning their guns on themselves, bragged about mutilating animals to their friends.
.
As powerful a statement as the high-profile examples above make, they don’t even begin to scratch the surface of the whole truth behind the abuse connection. Learning more about the animal cruelty/interpersonal violence connection is vital for community members and law enforcement alike.”
It is a fact that acts of animal cruelty lead to forms of cruelty against humans.
“A criminologist and forensic psychologist at Bond University, said the torturing, maiming and killing of animals were red flags of someone capable of future violence against people.”
They go on to state specific cases: “Archibald McCafferty, Sydney’s ‘Kill Seven’ murderer, used to strangle chickens, cats and dogs before killing people.”
“In Victoria, serial killer Paul Charles Denyer disembowelled a native cat and cut the throat of its kittens.” He went on to become the Frankston killer’ murdering Elizabeth Stevens, 18, Debbie Fream, 22, and Natalie Russell, 17, in Frankston Victoria in 1993.
WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS DISTURBING ANIMAL CRUELTY WHICH MAY OFFEND. WE INCLUDE IT TO PORTRAY THE REALITY OF AUSTRALIA’S TREATMENT OF KANGAROOS
(To play video press the arrow in centre of video; to stop video press the pause button on bottom left)
.
2011: Hobart’s Jamie Peter Smart decapitates 3 kittens
.
‘A Hobart court has heard the DNA of a man accused of decapitating kittens was found on their bodies.
Jamie Peter Smart, 31, is appearing in the Hobart Magistrates Court, accused of decapitating two kittens and of strangling a third.
Prosecutor Mel Jerrim told the court Smart and two other men had gone to the Glenorchy home of the kittens’ owner in March last year because they thought she had thrown rocks to break up their all-night party.
The court was told the owner had refused to open the door and had called police when one of the men smashed the window of her car with a blockbuster. The first officer on the scene has given evidence of finding the body of one kitten, the head and body of another and just the body of a third.
The court heard a full DNA profile matching Smart’s was found on the decapitated kittens. DNA profiler Rita Westbury told the court it was unusual to get a full match from DNA transferred by contact. Normally such a match would come from a body fluid sample.
It suggested the kittens were handled for an extended period of time or with force.
Ms Westbury agreed it was not impossible that Smart’s DNA could have been transferred from blood on an axe handle to the kittens by a third person.
‘A Glenorchy man has been found guilty on two counts of killing an animal. The three five-week-old kittens were found by police after being called by the kittens owner in March 2010. Magistrate Olivia McTaggart found Jamie Peter Smart, 32, guilty of decapitating two kittens.
The Magistrates Court in Hobart heard Smart’s DNA was found on the kittens. The court heard Smart and two other men went to a house in Hopkins St, Moonah, bordering a party they were attending in March 2010. The trio accused the female occupant, and owner of the kittens, of throwing a rock through a house window at the party. The woman denied the accusation before one of the men smashed the window of a car parked in her driveway.
When the woman looked out her window a short time later she said she saw Smart with the head of a kitten in his hand baiting a dog.
Smart had pleaded not guilty to three counts of killing an animal. He will be sentenced next month.
‘The connection between animal abuse and violence against humans is well documented. Melbourne’s serial killer Paul Denyer and mass murderer Martin Bryant are amongst those whose history began with the abuse of animals.
Martin Bryant, who killed 35 people at Port Arthur (Tasmania), tortured and harassed animals at age seven, which was one of the first red flags he was a person with severe conduct disorder symptoms. Bryant was given an air rifle for his 14th birthday. Martin at 19 would kill dogs and shoot at tourists with an air gun which he always carried with him.
Martin Bryant tortured animals
Now, a university study has established a connection between domestic violence and animal abuse. The Monash University study showed just over half of family violence victims reported the perpetrator had also abused the family pets, and many women said they had delayed leaving a violent relationship out of concern for their pet’s welfare.
Interview by ABC Reporter Lisa Whitehead in 2007:
.
‘RIC HOLLAND, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, LORT SMITH ANIMAL HOSPITAL: We had a dog that had clearly been punched in the face with severe facial injuries and broken limbs. Probably it had been struck with a cricket bat or a baseball bat.
DR SASHA HERBERT, LORT SMITH ANIMAL HOSPITAL: The male owner said that the dog had run through a plate glass window to get to him. I suspect the dog had been thrown through the plate glass window rather than having run through it itself, or it else it was so frightened that it was running from something rather than to something.
JUDY JOHNSON, EASTERN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICE: The threats to the pets are used as a controlling mechanism by a perpetrator to say, “Look, remain with me. If you leave I will do such and such. I will either shoot the dog, I’ll strangle a cat, I’ll skin the guinea pigs, and when I find you and the children eventually, I’ll do the same to you”.
LISA WHITEHEAD: Those threats against the family pets may never be carried out, but they’re powerful coercive tool used to trap women and children in the web of domestic violence.
DR NICOLA TAYLOR, CENTRAL QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY: They can be used to keep them silent, particularly in the case of children where child abuse is concerned. They can also be used to make the victims stay in the relationship, or to make them behave in ways that they wouldn’t normally behave.
LISA WHITEHEAD: The stories workers in the field of domestic violence have been hearing for years are now being reaffirmed by the findings of the first Australian study examining the link between pet abuse and domestic violence.
DR SASHA HERBERT: And so have there ever been any injuries to your cat?
LISA WHITEHEAD: In the survey by Monash University and Melbourne’s Eastern Domestic Violence Service, more than half of the victims of family violence said their animals had been abused. The report mirrors the findings of research overseas where pet abuse is now seen as an indicator of other violent behaviour.
DR NICOLA TAYLOR: In the States they call it a “red flag” and what this essentially means is that if we know that there is animal abuse going on, then we should be looking more deeply for signs of child abuse and spousal abuse and other dysfunctional behaviour in that family.
LISA WHITEHEAD: Disturbingly, the Monash University study also found a third of the women living in crisis accommodation delayed leaving the family home out of concern for their pet’s welfare.
JUDY JOHNSON: There’s long stories of maybe the crisis line spending an hour on the phone to a woman talking to her about the possibility of finding a refuge, the difficulty of finding the refuge, and then at the very end the woman will say “And what about my horse?” And then you’re really back to square one because she won’t leave without the horse or the cat.
DR NICOLA TAYLOR: We need to also realise that the children very often have an attachment to these pets which can preclude them leaving.
TILLY: I had a family of dogs and they’re just as important to me as my two children. I didn’t want to leave them and find that he had hurt them or victimised them for me leaving.
LISA WHITEHEAD: Tilly was caught in a violent relationship for two and a half years. Desperate to get out, she tried in vain to find a temporary home for her dogs.
TILLY: I rang the RSPCA, I rang a lot of different agencies that … any agency that I could think of and there just was nothing out there. I couldn’t actually afford to take my dogs to a private kennel.
LISA WHITEHEAD: Finally, Tilly says she had no choice but to have one of her dogs put down.
TILLY: I sat in the car and cried for a quarter of an hour, shaking, and it was not something I had ever planned to do, and it’s certainly something that I never wish to ever have to do again.
LISA WHITEHEAD: It’s a grim option, but most domestic violence refuges can’t accommodate pets, and few animal shelters offer respite care for more than a week or two, leaving women and children little choice but to leave their pets behind. That’s the dilemma Naomi faced when escaping to a refuge with her children.
NAOMI: It was one of the first things that was actually brought up “What is he going to do to the animals?” They were really scared and really distressed about leaving them behind. They were their comfort. They were their safety and security.
LISA WHITEHEAD: But Animal Aid’s new Pets in Peril program came to Naomi’s rescue.
CLIENT: Good, good. I believe you have Gidget for me?
ASSISTANT: That’s right, yes.
LISA WHITEHEAD: Working closely with Melbourne’s Eastern Domestic Violence Service and a network of suburban vet clinics, Animal Aid finds safe homes for pets for a month or more. Coordinator, Debra Boland, says the importance of the program was brought home to her by one 12 year old girl.
DEBRA BOLAND, PETS IN PERIL: She used to ring on a regular basis just to … not to find out if they were OK, or not to find out when they could come home, but if they were still alive.
LISA WHITEHEAD: Experts say witnessing pet abuse as a child can have serious consequences.
DR NICOLA TAYLOR: We know essentially that children who do witness domestic violence and who presumably also witness this kind of abuse to pets, will be in a much higher risk category for developing anti social behaviour of some kind or another.
LISA WHITEHEAD: Animal Aid is just one small service helping to break that cycle of abuse, but recognition of the problem is slowly growing. The Queensland RSPCA runs a state-wide animal foster program for pets in crisis and other state RSPCAs have dedicated services in some areas. Now Melbourne’s Lort Smith Animal Hospital wants to get on board, working with domestic violence and child abuse agencies across Victoria. It plans to set up a 24 hour transport and boarding service for pets at risk.
RIC HOLLAND: That then gives a very clear access to the women in this situation to escape from a violent partner, be very confident that the pets are being cared for and once her life has got back on track, to actually reclaim the pets and bring them back into her and her children’s lives.
NAOMI: They were relieved, unbelievably relieved. We could actually start looking at books again, looking at books of different animals without the tears coming. They’re very excited about getting them back.’
2010: Baby Koala Shot multiple times, north of Brisbane
.
A koala joey, affectionately known as Doug, lies on a pillow after being shot by a slug gun in Morayfield, north of Brisbane, on January 19, 2010.
[Photo source: ^http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/baby-koala-clings-on-to-life-20101109-17lsb.html]
.
In January 2010, a baby Koala was shot multiple times and eventually died. It’s mother too was shot though survived, as explained in the following news article from Brisbane just two month ago:
‘A young koala is fighting for its life after it was wounded in a cowardly shooting at Morayfield, north of Brisbane.
Moreton Bay Koala Rescue president Annika Lehmann said the young male koala, estimated to be about eight or nine months old, had been taken to Australia Zoo for treatment.
The 940-gram koala, which had been named “Doug”, was in an induced coma.
He was found at the base of a tree at J Dobson Rd in Morayfield, Ms Lehmann said.
“Our rescuers got a call this morning about a little joey sitting at the trunk of a tree and his breathing was laboured,” she said. “Mum was 30 metres up in the tree, so we needed tree climbers to get her down, but the little boy was sitting at the bottom of the tree, so he was easy to get.”
Ms Lehmann said it was unclear how long Doug had been suffering as a result of the attack.
“He was very lethargic and dehydrated, so we don’t think this happened this morning or yesterday, it might have happened one or two days ago,” she said.
“At first we thought he had pneumonia, but when he had an x-ray they discovered the two bullets. “One is in the left chest cavity and one is in the lower abdomen.”
Ms Lehmann said Doug’s mother, which could also have been wounded, was also being assessed.
“I can’t really say much about her condition, but it looks like she’s OK,” she said.
Ms Lehmann said she had never seen a koala shot in the area before, although she was aware of several kangaroos shootings.
“Morayfield is one of those areas that we feel koalas are still relatively safe, so it was really bad that we found him there,” she said.
RSPCA spokesman Michael Beatty said the attack was disturbing, with the joey a “50/50 chance” of survival.
“At first glance, because it was a slug gun that was used, it’s probably kids but we really need to catch those who are responsible,” he said.
“All too often we’ve seen in the past the links between animal cruelty and other forms of violence down the track, so if this was kids they need to be made to be accountable for their actions now to nip something like this in the bud.”
Mr Beatty said people could call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or the RSPCA Cruelty Complaints Hotline on 1300 852 188 if they had any information on the attack.’
One of the kangaroos shot with an arrow in Melbourne, February 2009
[Photo: Melbourne Zoo]
.
A man has been arrested over the shooting of two kangaroos with arrows in Melbourne’s outer north this month.
The 27-year-old man from Thomastown, a Northern Melbourne suburb, was arrested in Epping on Wednesday morning. Police say they raided two Thomastown properties and seized two bows, six arrows, an arrow quiver and camouflage clothing. The man is also being interviewed over another incident in which a person was allegedly shooting a bow and arrows in a Bundoora park close to other people.
Kangaroo left for dead with an arrow through its head – it survived
.
An eastern grey kangaroo was found shot in the head with an arrow that had penetrated through the bone and into the nasal cavity at the University Hill Estate in Bundoora on May 9.
After an operation its prospects of a full recovery are good.
In an incident two days earlier at the same location, a juvenile female kangaroo was found with an arrow imbedded in its rump. Wildlife Victoria has offered a $10,000 reward to catch the person responsible.
Police charged the 27-year-old Thomastown man over the Bundoora shootings that horrified animal lovers this month.
One kangaroo survived after an arrow passed through its head while the other was found with an arrow in its rump. The man was arrested at his workplace on McDonalds Rd, Epping, on Wednesday morning and faces cruelty charges. A search of his house discovered two bows, five arrows, an arrow quiver, a paper target and camouflage clothing.
As he left Mill Park police station, he claimed he “didn’t know they were a protected animal” before driving away in a hotted-up car.
Detective Sen-Constable Dave Richards said police had acted on a tip-off.
“We had received a call from someone concerned for their (kangaroos’) well-being,” he said.
Sen-Constable Richards said police had received several tip-offs, particularly after Wildlife Victoria posted a $10,000 reward for information leading to a prosecution under the Cruelty Act.
The man was charged with reckless conduct endangering life and four counts of aggravated cruelty. He was bailed to appear at Heidelberg Magistrates’ Court on June 25.
Wildlife carer Belinda Gales, who has been looking after the injured kangaroos at Chum Creek Wildlife Shelter, said she was relieved to hear of the arrest.
She said it was a miracle the kangaroos – dubbed Beau and Hope – survived.
“Beau has made an amazing recovery. The only evidence is some small sutures on the side of his head,” Ms Gales said.
“Hope has taken a bit longer, because her wound got infected, but, hopefully, they will both be fine.”
Ms Gales hopes the kangaroos will be released in about two weeks.
“They have come to depend on each other, so they will stay here, and when they are both fit, they will be released together,” she said.
“We don’t know where they will go yet, but the main thing is that they go into a safe environment.”
Another five months later Twenty-seven-year-old Justin Stavropoulos was found guilty and jailed..
.
‘A man who pleaded guilty in Melbourne to shooting four kangaroos with a bow and arrow has been jailed for 12 months.
Twenty-seven-year-old Justin Stavropoulos pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and hunting protected wildlife. His lawyer asked the court to consider a sentence Stavropoulos could serve in the community.
But Magistrate Jennifer Grubissa said a jail term was the only appropriate sentence to deter other people from doing the same thing. She said the offending was cruel and callous.
The four kangaroos were shot in Bundoora earlier this year.
One survived the attacks. Two died quickly. And a third kangaroo, with an arrow through its face, died after surgery.
The magistrate said Stavropoulos should have known that unless he was a perfect marksman his actions were unlikely to lead to a humane death for the animals.
Stavropoulos was ordered to serve a non-parole period of four months.
Stavropoulos is appealing the sentence. He was granted bail to face an appeal hearing in the County Court next March.
Well, Robin Hood aspirant Stavropoulos appealed the court’s decision, however the judge upheld the jail term..
.
‘A judge has upheld a 12-month jail term given to a camouflage-clad man who shot and maimed kangaroos with a high-powered bow and arrow.
Justin Stavropoulos, 27, killed and maimed several kangaroos during hunting trips in Melbourne’s northern fringe during April and May last year. He was given a 12-month jail sentence, with a minimum of four months, in the Heidelberg Magistrates Court last October, but was bailed pending an appeal.
However, his sentence was today upheld by Victorian County Court judge Frank Gucciardo. Judge Gucciardo said Stavropoulos may not have appreciated the stupidity of his actions, but the community needed to be sent a strong message that violence towards animals was unacceptable. The judge accepted Stavropoulos believed the animals were game and could be hunted, but said it must have been obvious to him that using a high-powered bow and arrow would have caused the animals agony.
“How such a weapon can be so easily obtained can only engender dismay”, he said.
Stavropoulos must pay compensation of more than $4000 to wildlife authorities involved in rescuing the injured animals. Stavropoulos, of Thomastown, had pleaded guilty to charges of animal cruelty and hunting protected wildlife.
Outside court, animal activists welcomed the sentence.
2012: Kangaroos shot with arrows in outside Canberra
.
Canberra kangaroos shot with bow and arrows at Mount Ainslie outside Canberra
.
Kangaroos have been shot and killed with a bow and arrows in what park rangers are describing as a “distressing” spate of attacks on Mount Ainslie.
Two kangaroos were shot dead by arrows in the area in the past two weeks, and one had to be put down to end its suffering.
National Parks, Reserves and Rural Land manager Stephen Hughes said those responsible for the attacks could be charged a range of offences, which could see them face two years in prison and up to $22,000 of fines.
“It is very distressing to discover this illegal behaviour which, in addition to the suffering caused to the kangaroos, poses a public safety hazard,” he said.
“Mount Ainslie is a high use reserve which is particularly popular with late afternoon and evening walkers, joggers and cyclists.”
Police and park rangers have stepped up their monitoring of the area to try and catch the culprits.
Anyone with information is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or make a report via the website at www.act.crimestoppers.com.au.
[Source: ‘Roos attacked with bow and arrow’, 20120207, ^http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/roos-attacked-with-bow-and-arrow-20120207-1t91v.html]
.
The ACT Government is appealing to the public for information on the arrow attacks. There has been a number of attacks on kangaroos in Canberra’s Mount Ainslie Reserve using a bow and arrow.
Over the past two weeks members of the public have reported finding kangaroos that have been killed or injured with arrows. Rangers found one kangaroo already dead while another had to be put down to end its suffering.
ACT Parks manager Stephen Hughes says the use of a high powered bow and arrow is illegal and the incidents are extremely concerning.
“This is a professional bow and arrow that’s being used,” he said. “Our two major concerns are that apart from the obvious suffering caused to the kangaroos from this activity, it’s a serious threat to the many visitors that walk and ride in Mt Ainslie Nature Reserve every day.
“These people are being put at risk by this irresponsible behaviour.” Mr Hughes says the situation is distressing. “It’s unbelievable that people can find it entertaining to undertake this sort of activity in this day and age, shooting our native wildlife,” he said.
The ACT Government is appealing to the public to help catch the people responsible.
“ACT Policing has been notified of the illegal activity. Together with rangers, police will step up their monitoring of the area,” Mr Hughes said.
[Source: ‘Ainslie roos killed by arrows’, 20120208, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-08/ainslie-kangaroos-shot-arrows/3817500]
.
Hobby Killers(killing for fun) continues to be funded by the New South Wales taxpayer
The Game Council NSW uses euphemistic terms like ‘hunt‘ instead of ‘kill‘, and ‘game‘ instead of ‘wildlife‘.
It is a deliberate strategy to demonise wildlife and to seek public legitimacy to kill for fun.
All types of characters are attracted.
.
‘Animal Cruelty as a Predictor of Other Criminal Behaviours: Australian Data’
.
‘As part of a larger study, a total of 200 participants was randomly selected from a New South Wales (NSW) Police database containing 947 individuals involved in animal cruelty incidents (Clarke, 2002; 2003). The sample included 38 female (M = 32.8 years, SD = 12.6 years) and 162 male (M = 28.4 years, SD = 8.7 years) participants. All participants were located using a NSW police service data collection system.
Conclusions:
Out of the sample of 200, 61.5 percent had alsocommitted an assault. Further, more than half of these individuals, all of whom had a history of animal abuse, also had convictions for driving offences, domestic violence and stealing. Other offences observed included drug and firearms offences, sexual assaults, malicious damage, assaulting police and street offences. It is noteworthy that as many as 17% of these offenders had also been sexually abuse.
In fact, animal abuse was a better predictor of sexual assault than previous convictions for homicide, arson orfirearms offences.
These data demonstrate that animal abuse is predictive of other criminal behaviours including violent crimes. These findings, therefore, indicate that identified animal cruelty needs to be given increased attention, both by law enforcement and service provision organisations, in efforts aimed at reducing or preventing criminal behaviours. Recognition of factors that may inadvertently be endorsing or aiding the maintenance of violent criminal and animal abuse behaviours is also important. Continued legalisation of recreational hunting may be one such factor.”
‘Research shows abusers believe abuse is justified‘
.
A criminal psychology research article by Robert Agnew of Emory University, USA, entitled: ‘The Causes of Animal Abuse: A Social-Psychological Analysis‘ presents a theory that explains why individuals engage in animal abuse.
“First, I describe the immediate determinants of animal abuse. Animal abuse is said to result from ignorance about the abusive consequences of our behavior for animals, the belief that abuse is justified, and the perception that abuse is personally beneficial.
Second, I describe an additional set of factors that have both direct effects on animal abuse and indirect effects through the above three factors. These additional factors include individual traits, like empathy; the individual’s socialization; the individual’s level of strain or stress; the individual’s level of social control; the nature of the animal under consideration; and the individual’s social position.”
Animal abuse is no different to child abuse.
As disgusted as nearly all Australians are with animal abuse, Australia’s animal protection laws remain are inadequate both as a deterrent and as a punishment.
Wildlife killing and abuse is morally unacceptable and should be made a crime in the same way that killing or abusing humans is a crime. All that would be required is adding an animal section to the existing crimes acts around the country.
“A correlation between animal abuse, family violence and other forms of community violence has been established. Child and animal protection professionals have recognized this link, noting that abuse of both children and animals is connected in a self-perpetuating cycle of violence. When animals in a home are abused or neglected, it is a warning sign that others in the household may not be safe. In addition, children who witness animal abuse are at a greater risk of becoming abusers themselves.” [American Humane Society]
Police are not required to enforce animal cruelty breaches.
Instead it is relegated to an under-resourced, under-equipped RSPCA, which is at best a toothless force. Australia should set a moral standard, establish a national squad within the Australian Federal Police to deal specifically with animal abuse. Australia needs to set up a central database on animal killers and abusers just as in the same way paedophiles are monitored as social deviants. No more abuse!
After the cat incident in Cairns, it seems logical that air rifles and bb-guns are those weapons that adolescents get access to before firearms.
Access and acceptance to such weapons tends to one more familiar with those on the land or a non-urban lifestyle. It may be worth investigating this in an article. Meanwhile, the ‘bevan’ mindset and animal cruelty that persists in some communities is an eye opener.
.
“…Bruce Kringle, 60, lay on top of the animal in a desperate bid to stop the attack in Flowerdale (Victoria) just before 7am. A neighbour heard his cries for help and, after telling Mr Kringle to move off the animal, killed it with a blow from the back of an axe. Geoff McClure, compliance team leader for the Department of Sustainability and Environment, said a wombat attack was extremely unusual.”
.
Frankly, I find this hard to believe and indeed suspicious. A ‘rogue wombat’? This is a wombat..
Australian Wombat – a docile noctural herbivore
.
Wombats are native to this part of Victoria. If anything, it is the humans with axes that are the rogues. Did Kringle have a Alexander Pearcian moment after getting on the turps perhaps? Alexander Pearce was that notorious 19th Century convict in Van Diemans Land who butchered his fellow escapees with an axe then ate them, as the recent disturbing film portrays [Watch Trailer]. (To play video press the arrow in centre of video; to stop video press the pause button on bottom left)
The incident should be investigated by both a RSPCA vet and the police taking account of witnesses, and including a blood alchohol test on both the men, and a background check on Kringle and the ‘neighbour’ who killed it with an axe for any history of animal abuse.
Killing a wombat with an axe? How cruel, vicious and unnecessary!
.
Kangaroo shooting ‘industry’
.
‘Contrary to claims by regulatory agencies, the industry here in Australia is not fully professional, with a large proportion of casual shooters amongst licensees.
Kangaroos that are inaccurately targeted (not hit in the head from 80 to 200 metres at night) may suffer a painful, protracted death and their carcasses will not be utilised.
Pouch-young joeys are clubbed on the head!
.
Young-at-foot are supposed to be shot, but since the industry is self-regulated, they are often left to die of starvation or predation.
Taken together, it is likely that up to a million young are killed annually as collateral damage and their carcasses not used. This is an unacceptable practice by international standards. They are the by-products of the greatest massacre of wild animals in the world. In a similar case of harvested terrestrial wildlife, the products derived from young Canadian Harp Seals – which are clubbed to death – have been banned in most westernised countries.
“It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ….I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products”
The following article was written by Andrew Campbell 20090209 and in the days following Victoria’s ‘Black Saturday‘ bushfire disaster(s) of February 2009. It is entitled ‘Thoughts on the Victorian Bushfires‘ and is reproduced with permission below. It contributes a insightful and reflective review as well as offering bushfire management reform initiatives out of this tragedy and ahead of future inevitable wildfire emergencies.
The bulk of this essay was written on 10 February 2009, circulated by email among colleagues and posted on Professor Campbell’s web site. It received a strong positive response, eliciting many useful additional points, some of which are now incorporated in this updated version. The original document may be accessed from Professor Campbell’s website Triple Helix Consulting ^http://www.triplehelix.com.au, specifically donwloaded ^http://www.triplehelix.com.au/documents/AndrewCampbellontheVictorianBushfires_000.pdf
Triple Helix Consulting site offers a range of information resources including publications, presentations and projects. As of February 2011, Andrew Campbell has taken on a new role as Professor and Inaugural Director of the Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods (RIEL) at Charles Darwin University in Darwin, Australia. This website will be maintained as a record of Triple Helix outputs, but Andrew’s more recent writings and talks will be accessible through RIEL.
.
The images have been added.
.
Approach to Marysville before Black Saturday
.
.
‘Thoughts on the Victorian Bushfires’
by Andrew Campbell
.
Countryside north of Marysville before Black Saturday
(Marysville is in the valley amongst the coloured deciduous trees)
.
A friend in America asked me for my thoughts about some of the media and web reports circulating about the Victorian fires.
As a Victorian forester with professional training in fire behaviour, fire suppression and fire management, and with experience as a sector boss in fires leading up to and including Ash Wednesday (February 1983), I have maintained an on-going interest in fire management in Australia. As a consultant policy adviser and research manager I’m interested in what our
response says about our collective knowledge base. The way we handle fires for me is one of the key indicators for how well we are learning to live in this ancient continent. The Victorian fires, and in particular some of the media since the fires, suggest that we have a long way to go in improving the ecological literacy of Australians and the body politic.
There has been lots of rabid stuff coming out since 7th February, pushing long-held anti-green agendas. Suggestions that it’s all the greenies’ fault and headlines like “will the real arsonists
please stand up” claiming that conservationists, tree protection policies and green groups’ opposition to hazard reduction burning are to blame for the fires — and by implication, the tragic loss of life and on-going suffering for people and wildlife — have been particularly ghoulish and offensive.
Claims that more broadscale fuel reduction burning in Victoria’s forests would have prevented these fires and the horrendous loss of life are nonsense. The reasons why these fires have been so destructive of life and property are multiple, interacting, complex and systemic – inevitably a recipe for media to simplify and take short-cuts to reach a convenient narrative (even better if it can be polarised into two opposing camps) that ends up being misleading and unhelpful.
Three crucial facts: 47 degrees temp (115 Fahrenheit), 120km/hr winds and relative humidity of 6%. That these conditions followed two weeks of >40 degrees heat wave, that in turn followed an unusually wet November-December and lots of late spring-early summer growth, after a decade of drought, made for an explosive tinderbox and an unprecedented
Fire Danger Index.
7th February 2009 looking east of Melbourne
.
Under those conditions, fuel reduction, access tracks etc are much less useful. These fires burnt through areas that had been burnt by wildfire in 2004, and logging coupes that had been clear-felled within recent years. Mountain Ash forests — the tallest flowering plants in the world — have a lifecycle adaptation to fire. They are difficult to ignite (because they are usually wet forests with predominantly smooth bark), but when the conditions are right, they burn ferociously, creating an ash bed suitable for their regenerating seedlings. As ash seedlings are shade-intolerant, they regenerate best after very hot fires that destroy the canopy. In the absence of such fires over their life cycle, they will not persist. When fires are exploding through the canopies of 200+ feet high trees with volatilised oils creating a superheated vapour, the ground layer becomes virtually irrelevant. Witnesses described huge trees literally exploding, and that is an accurate description under these sorts of conditions.
There were few if any lightning strikes on Saturday until the cool change came through in the evening. Along with problems with power lines, arson probably played a role and two people have already been arrested. The authorities were getting saturation airtime on Melbourne radio and TV from Wednesday onwards, telling people to avoid forested areas if at all possible on Saturday. They were saying very clearly that Saturday would be the worst fire conditions ever experienced in Victoria. While these warnings were essential, it is possible that these very warnings motivated arsonists. There has been too little bushfire research on arson, but that which has been done suggests that it is an important factor in large wildfires.
Black Saturday Firestorm
.
Australia (especially Victoria) needs a complete rethink of fire preparedness. With a drying, warming climate, these hitherto unprecedented conditions will become more frequent in future. Professor David Karoly of the University of Melbourne has explained that the maximum temperature, relative humidity and drought index (but not wind speed) in Victoria on 7 February were clearly exceptional and can reasonably be linked to climate change. In early 2007, the Climate Institute commissioned the Bushfire CRC, the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO to undertake the most comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of the impact of climate change on bushfire weather in Australia. That report concluded that on the current climate change trajectory, very extreme fire weather days may occur around twice as often by 2020 and four to five times as often by 2050 across much of southern and eastern Australia.
Few people have made the connect between fires and water supplies. If we did fuel reduction burns over the areas and on the frequencies advocated by the “it’s all the greenies’ fault” brigade, then water yields from forested catchments would drop, CO2 emissions would increase, species composition of forests would change and some species would disappear. Crucially, we would still have significant risks to life and property, both as a direct result of fuel reduction burns getting away, and because it would not prevent wildfires under the sorts of extreme conditions experienced on 7 February.
.
The answers for me lie in these areas:
Dramatically improved fire detection, early warning and first attack capabilities, with real-time use of satellite imagery, many more aircraft already in the air over high-risk areas on high-risk days, and highly trained first attack crews in helicopters distributed around the state (noting that aerial operations are difficult in very windy conditions and first attack possibilities are limited under the catastrophic conditions of 7 February);
More aggressive fuel management immediately around houses and fire survival bunkers for houses/communities in fire prone areas, and changes to planning laws, home lending and insurance policies and practices, and building codes to mandate fire-sensitive design for measures such as window shutters, leafless guttering systems, under-floor venting, gas bottle storage etc;
Dramatically ramped up efforts to identify arsonists (psychological profiling of fire volunteers etc), penalties for arson, and close monitoring of known arsonists on bad days, with increases in the size of arson squads and stronger penalties for arson; and
Much better and mandatory training in fire preparedness for everyone in high-risk areas.
.
The ‘leave early, or prepare, stay and fight’ policy remains the right policy. But the bar has been lifted for both options. Leave early means before the high-risk day (which is reasonable now that forecasts are so accurate). Prepare, stay and fight means being trained, equipped and ready with a plan B (the survival bunker) for those rare (but more likely in future) situations (>40C, <20% relative humidity, >80km/hr winds, super-dry fuels) like 7 February where fire behaviour becomes unpredictable and off the scale. If you don’t have such a bunker (see below) and the forecast is for such conditions, as was clear by 4 February, then you should leave very early.
If you have a house in a beautiful bush setting on an elevated site that is difficult to defend, then a valid strategy would be to invest in insurance rather than bunkers, tanks, pumps and so on. Then get into the habit of leaving (and having critical possessions, pets etc organised) before extreme fire weather arrives. You’d then take your chances with the house, knowing that there is still a greater chance of being in a car accident in any one year than having your house burnt down in a bushfire. Even in this scenario though, I’d nevertheless reduce fuel loads in the vicinity of the house as far as possible.
Rob Gell (pers comm), weatherman, communicator and environmentalist, responded to an earlier version of this piece, noting that councils, banks and insurers have much to answer for, and big opportunities to improve their practices:
“They’ve let thousands of lower socioeconomic sector families settle in fire-prone areas where lots are cheaper and the urban planning issues of overlooking and proximity are not on the agenda. The insurance industry and the banks have been accomplices. The banks have required insurance to build but are not concerned when the policies lapse after the first 12 months. More than 50% of houses were uninsured – I have heard 58%! The insurance companies have not insisted on annually checked and approved Fire Plans – let alone provide a premium discount if a plan is approved. There are no premium discounts for fire-proof house design or for sprinkler systems, working pumps etc.”
Turning off the gas supply at the mains on high-risk days would also reduce the risk for residences. Fuel reduction near houses is important. If councils are prepared to approve dwellings being built in high-risk areas, then it follows that they also need to approve the necessary clearing. But for small lots on high risk sites in forested regions, even total clearing may not be sufficient to ensure safety under extreme conditions, so much more consideration needs to be given to the landscape planning and development approval processes in the first place.
Professor Michael Buxton of RMIT notes (pers comm) that:
“anticipatory policies on the use of materials, building design and building location are long overdue. Governments keep avoiding these issues. Fire hazard mapping is proceeding, but government and local responses remain inadequate. Why do we prevent people from building in a flood plain but allow developers to subdivide land on ridges with one access point in areas of high potential fire hazard?”
For existing houses, if people have any intention of staying, it is important to have at least one significant area of cleared land free of flammable material. This is a completely different matter to broadscale fuel reduction over the whole forest estate. In times past, we would have called that cleared safe area a lawn. Now we need to look at other options.
These fires proved that a parked vehicle (preferably a diesel) with the engine running and the air-conditioning on full recirculating could be a suitable survival shelter, provided it was parked on a large enough clear apron away from major fuel loads. But they also reinforced the well-known point that attempting to flee in a car in dense smoke once the fires are well underway is incredibly risky.
For me, much of the media commentary, the so-called informed opinion and the human behaviour on display during and since the fires, underline the point that in many ways we are still behaving more like displaced Poms, than Australians who are adapted to living in this extraordinary continent. Rowan Reid from the University of Melbourne, wondered in The Age why it is that our weather forecasts don’t routinely report the fire danger index (see below) to better educate the community about likely fire behaviour. It’s also critical that people learn that on extreme fire days they must be well clothed, in heavy cotton from ankle to wrist, with a good hat (preferably a hard hat) and something to cover the face. I find that the hard hat with integrated visor that you can buy with your Stihl chainsaw is a good start.
I cannot believe all the TV footage from the fire zones (in these fires and other recent big fires) showing people trying to defend their properties wearing shorts, singlets and thongs.
Fire-resistant footwear is especially important under ember attack in thick smoke. In countries where temperatures often exceed 40C, the natives dress in long loose-fitting robes, usually white, they always have head-dress and they don’t expose acres of flesh directly to the sun — and that’s in daily life, let alone when confronting a fire…
There is a crucial distinction between strategic hazard reduction burning and managing fuel loads in the immediate vicinity of houses and townships; and broadscale fuel reduction burns across the whole forest estate. I think the former is under-done and the latter is overrated. The crucial point that must be underlined is that under very extreme conditions (Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) above 50 — see below), fuel loads are no longer the key driver of fire behaviour, compared with weather (some of which is fire-induced) and topography (especially slope). It is worth remembering that in January 2003, Canberra had a strip 5-10 km wide of flogged-out, drought-stricken paddocks with not a blade of grass on them as a “fire break” to its west, but this did not prevent fires from reaching the pine plantations on its western edge. Once that happened, then of course high fuel loads so close to houses (noting that the plantations were there before the suburbs) led to houses in Duffy, Chapman and Holder being lost.
.
“This is a completely different matter to broadscale fuel reduction over the whole forest estate.”
.
In particular, the suggestion that having had more fuel reduction burning over larger areas more frequently during the drought of the last decade in Victoria would have prevented
these fires — and by extension that doing even more of it is essential in the hotter, drier climate we are moving into — is not backed up by the best available science. Fuel reduction burning doesn’t bring rain. [Note: Moreover, recent research by Clive McAlpine and colleagues has found a statistically significant correlation between the warming and drying in southern and eastern Australia in recent decades and large-scale broadacre land clearing.]
In the bush itself, there is a case for strategic hazard reduction burns in dry sclerophyll stringybark and box-ironbark forests, woodlands and grasslands. Done properly, strategic hazard reduction burns can reduce fire crowning behaviour and increase the probability of control under most conditions. There is a case for arguing that the 2003 and 2006-7 fires lasted so long because fuel build up over large areas made fire control more difficult. But it does not necessarily follow that the answer is therefore more frequent burning off on a larger scale. We need more and better research to understand the appropriate scale, pattern and frequency that will balance ecological health with (changing) fire protection objectives. Fuel reduction burning on the scale and frequency advocated recently by some advocates (e.g. 10% of whole estate every year) is a blunt instrument likely to lead to perverse outcomes without preventing large fires under catastrophic conditions.
The word ‘strategic’ is important. It is easily abused, for example in proposals to clear great swathes of bush in “strategic firebreaks” that coincidentally align very well with freeway construction programs. For me, ‘strategic’ hazard reduction means consistent with a well thought-through strategy, based on the best available (preferably current) scientific research, with very clear and internally consistent objectives (which balance other public good objectives like water, greenhouse and biodiversity) and performance measures. Much that has been advocated recently fails those tests.
.
“There is a compelling case for national leadership in bushfire policy, education, research,knowledge management, monitoring and evaluation, and building the technical capabilities we will need in a much more challenging future for fire management in Australia.”
.
Water catchments need to be handled very carefully or water yields will drop even further. Fire researchers are already questioning the increasing tendency to use back-burning as a first option rather than a last option in fire suppression, because it increases the ultimate size of fires and the length of the burning edge. Lives have already been lost during back burns. On balance, keeping more tracks open is justified, provided tracks are well-designed and maintained.
Climate change means that the notion of a ‘cool burn’ is problematic. There have already been coroners’ inquests into the deaths of firefighters undertaking so-called ‘cool burns’. Fuel reduction in wet sclerophyll forests is difficult, because when the forest is dry enough to burn, it means virtually having a planned wildfire. Professor Peter Kanowski of the Australian National University has published a very useful briefing note on fuel reduction burning for the Institute of Foresters, pointing out that, while there is a case for more fuel reduction burning, there are many constraints, and it can’t be implemented in fire-sensitive wet eucalypt forests carrying heavy fuel loads such as the Mountain Ash forests north-east of Melbourne.
It is also a fallacy to suggest that tall wet eucalypt forest in south-eastern Australia used to be burned on a regular basis by Aboriginal people and that with increased frequency and
extent of fuel reduction burning, we would be returning to a more ‘natural’ burning regime. Painstaking research by Ron Hateley of Clunes, in a forthcoming book drawing upon a wide range of primary sources from the diaries of the first settlers and explorers, finds no evidence of so called ‘firestick farming’ by Aboriginal people in Victorian forests. Such burning may have occurred on a modest scale in the open woodlands and grasslands of northern Victoria, but there is no solid primary evidence in either the early diaries, the sedimentary record or the dendrochronological record (tree rings) that Aboriginal people burned the forests of southern and eastern Victoria. Hateley documents solid evidence that historians and others have extrapolated evidence from northern Australia, assuming that Aboriginal burning practices in the northern savannas were also employed in the forests of southeastern Australia. Repeated and reinforced by authors as diverse and notable as Geoffrey Blainey, Tim Flannery and Phil Cheney, this has become an enduring and unhelpful myth. The primary evidence suggests that the tall wet sclerophyll forests and temperate rainforests of south-eastern Australia were characterised by a thick, almost impenetrable understorey, and not subject to regular firing by humans prior to European settlement. Phil Zylstra’s research, based on dendrochronology and charcoal and pollen deposits, suggests that fire frequency in the Australian Alps and the wet sclerophyll forests of south-eastern Australia has substantially increased since European settlement.
Mount Buffalo incinerated
(Photo: Johannes Smit)
.
Drying conditions mean that in south-eastern Australia, a ‘cool burn’ in our tall eucalypt forests is now most likely possible in spring, when marsupials and birds are breeding. Under contemporary conditions, fires at this time of year are very difficult to control and often become wildfires with consequent risk to life and property — especially as over recent decades we have approved so many more dwellings in and on the fringes of the bush.
There is a torrent of ignorant opinion from self-appointed experts (mainly from outside Victoria, from people who were not there on Saturday (Germaine Greer being the most extreme example!)) hitting the media at the moment, blaming the greenies, the government and local councils for not doing enough hazard reduction burning. I see a grave risk that the intense and widely shared desire to implement measures “so that this can never happen again” (when of course it can and will), will translate into simplistic, one-dimensional approaches that default to non-strategic fuel reduction burning and increased clearing of native vegetation — with perverse and unintended consequences.
No mainstream conservation organisation in Australia is opposed to well-targeted and managed hazard reduction burning. A drying climate and a very dry decade have narrowed the windows within which it can be done successfully, and many communities and people with respiratory problems complain about the smoke (not to mention the wine industry).
The size of wildfires in Victoria over the last decade means that vast areas have been fuel reduced, and yet the events of 7 February still occurred. Professor David Lindenmayer of the ANU (pers comm) points out that: “I worked out of Marysville for 25 years and every year for the past 5 years the outskirts of the town were fuel reduced.”
Kevin Tolhurst from the University of Melbourne (a current fire researcher gathering current data under contemporary conditions, unlike some retired ‘experts’ trotted out by the media) has said that more fuel reduction in the forests would have made little if any difference under Saturday’s conditions. Prof Ross Bradstock from the University of Wollongong and
the Bushfires CRC, has pointed out that the Fire Danger Index (FDI) was over 150 in Melbourne on February 7. The FDI incorporates temperature, wind speed, humidity and a
measure of fuel dryness. It was developed in the 1960s and calibrated on a scale from zero (no fire danger) to 100 (‘Black Friday’ 1939) for both forests and grasslands. Fuel reduction research has mostly involved small-scale experiments at FDIs between 10 and 20. A forest FDI (FFDI) above 50 indicates that, due to fire crowning and spotting behaviour, weather becomes the dominant indicator of fire behaviour, and it becomes impossible to fight a running forest fire front. When eucalypt forests are crowning, fuel reduction at ground level is academic. Recent research suggests that with a drying warming climate we are now seeing unprecedented FDIs, and need to introduce a new fire danger rating above ‘extreme’ called ‘catastrophic’ to more realistically present the dangers associated with days like 7 February.
Graeme Beasley inspects his property damage in the town of Koornalla near ChurchillPhoto: Wayne Taylor
..’More than 5000 people have been left homeless – some permanently – by Victoria’s devastating bushfires.’
[Source: ‘Relief Centres Swamped’, by Britt Smith, 20090209, ^http://www.theage.com.au/national/relief-centres-swamped-20090209-81c1.html]
Much of the recent criticism of Victorian authorities is unfair, or at best premature. The Victorian authorities have more expertise in these sorts of fires than anyone else. It should be remembered that over 300 new fires started in Victoria on 7 February, and only a dozen were not rounded up, which was a great effort. But those 12 major fires, under unprecedented conditions, caused enormous damage and horrible loss of life. None of the 181 deaths announced up to 10 February were firefighters, which is a huge improvement from Ash Wednesday 1983 and Black Friday 1939. Tragically, one volunteer firefighter from Canberra has since been killed by a falling tree, and several others have been injured by falling limbs in trying to secure control lines. But overall, the marked reduction in firefighter casualties from the firefront itself, compared with previous large-scale fires, is commendable. The Victorian inter-agency coordination processes, their large fire management systems, their aerial detection, airborne infra-red fire-mapping systems, their personnel training, and their community education and communication approaches are already up with the best in the world (especially considering their resource constraints compared with say California). This is entirely appropriate given that Victoria is the most dangerous wildfire region anywhere, in its combination of climate, fuel types and fuel loads, topography and population density.
That is not to suggest that all these things and more could not be much better — as the Royal Commission will no doubt reveal. Professor Rod Keenan, Head of the Department of Forest and Ecosystem Science at the University of Melbourne, has written a perceptive piece arguing that we need to rethink Bushfire Governance at the national level, supporting a stronger national approach to bushfire and land management. I agree with Rod on this, as the intersections between fire management and other national priorities such as climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, water yields and biodiversity conservation are acute.
National Army Response – ‘Operation VIC FIRE ASSIST 2009’
.
There is a compelling case for national leadership in bushfire policy, education, research,knowledge management, monitoring and evaluation, and building the technical capabilities
we will need in a much more challenging future for fire management in Australia. We have already made a good start with national coordination of aerial fire-fighting through the National Aerial Firefighting Centre (NAFC) and in collaboration across States and Territories through AFAC. But more could be done, and the Australian Government could be taking a stronger leadership role beyond just providing funds. These fires, against the background of climate change, herald a new era. We now need to achieve a comparable improvement in preparedness, training, equipment and discipline across the wider community, especially in high-risk bushfire zones. This is a mammoth and systemic education, planning, policy, technical and management challenge. It will inevitably mean allocating more resources to these tasks than we have in the past. The public response to these fires in donating hundreds of millions of dollars has been heart-warming. Governments always seem to be able to find funds for rescue packages and disaster response measures after the event. But our record in investing properly in prevention and risk management is modest at best.
Just as the post-mortems of 1939, 1967 and 1983 also led to fundamental re-thinks and systemic improvements (albeit with patchy implementation), so will the Royal Commission into these fires. The whole planning system should be overhauled, way beyond just building codes and vegetation management. Premier Brumby and his cabinet — and I suspect now Kevin Rudd — appear to understand that business as usual will not do. They also seem to understand the link to climate change in making events such as these (and worse) more likely in future. But they have yet to make the logical jump to the urgency of mitigating climate change, which means setting ambitious targets, and retooling the economy from top to bottom to achieve them.
Bushfire Governance is a National Responsibilty
.
I’m reminded of the challenge of running whole farm planning courses for farmers in the mid-1980s, looking at how to redesign farm layout and management to get a more synergistic blend of conservation and production. It was difficult to get farmers to imagine an entirely new farm layout — the fences on the ground had become fences in their heads. The most effective technique I found was to say “imagine that your farm has just been burnt out, and all the fences and infrastructure have been destroyed. Would you put them back exactly as they were before?” Invariably, the response was an emphatic ‘no, of course not’. That simple scenario exercise often unlocked their imagination and strategies for how the farm could be redesigned to better ‘fit’ into the landscape, its soil types, hydrology and land forms, rather than be superimposed on to it in a rectilinear fashion dictated by some colonial surveyor 150 years ago.
This analogy applies equally at the level of the world financial system, and at the level of national, state and local governments in Australia. We have had our bushfire, literally and figuratively. The old structures have been flattened. Let’s not put them back as they were. Let’s take the opportunity to redesign, to rewire, to replumb and to replenish our landscapes,
our economies, and our basic systems for food production, energy, transport, water and housing, to fit new climatic, ecological and economic circumstances.
.
Gippsland Bushfire of 1898
bushfires are not new to Australia.
The following article was initially written by Tigerquoll entitled ‘US Republican Katherine Harris – a Presbyterian ‘pro-lifer’ who treats animals like this!‘ and published on CanDoBetter.net 20091129.
Animal Cruelty by US Republican Katherine HarrisThe woman should have a criminal record and be prohibited for life from holding public office
(Photo: AP)
.
In rural Wassau in the southern US state of Florida, the Wausau Possum Festival has become an annual summertime folk festival over the past forty years. This event is said to celebrate the role of the opossum in the survival of the populace of Northwest Florida during the depression. Aside from the music, a key feature is the fundraising possum auction for the local Wausau Development Club, which involves holding opossums by their tail. Possum is served up as a main fare.
The Virginia oppossum (Didelphis virginiana Kerr) is the only marsupial native to the south eastern region of North America and extending through Central America.
American Republican politician Katherine Harris of Florida is shown here in August 2006 during her campaigning for the 2006 Florida United States Senate election, holding a possum by the tail and is said to have bid $400 at the so-called ‘possum auction’.
According to the festival’s sick tradition, every election year, national and statewide candidates in Florida must prove they are good country folk by mistreating a possum at the Wausau Possum Festival. “Candidates bid for a possum, taking it out of a holding area by its tail and giving it a shake to terrify the creature into going limp so it won’t claw them. They’re later fed and released into the wild“.
The following advertisement by Pfizer Australia appeared in The Land newspaper on 22nd September 2011 in the ‘Livestock’ section on page 70. It was promoting Pfizer’s pharmaceutical vaccine product Gudair® Vaccine for the control of Ovine Johnes Disease (OJD) infecting Australian sheep.
The ODJ Menace may well be a threat to sheep flocks, but Wolves have got nothing to do with ODJ nor with Australian sheep!
.
Wolves have got absolutely nothing to do with Ovine Johne’s Disease.
Wolves don’t even exist in Australia. They are native to continental Europe and Northern America where in fact the Gray Wolf continues to be persecuted and where Pfizer is headquartered, in New York City.
Ovine Johne’s Disease is a serious wasting disease that affects a wide range of animals, including cattle, sheep and goats in Australia. It is caused by bacteria (Mycobacterium paratuberculosis) that live mainly in animal intestines but can also survive in the outside environment for several months.
This is the cause of Ovine Johne’s Disease, the bacteria ‘Mycobacterium paratuberculosis’
[Source: ‘Detection of Mycobacterium avium spp. paratuberculosis (Map) in samples of sheep paratuberculosis (Johne’s disease or JD) and human Crohn’s disease (CD) using liquid phase RT-PCR, in situ RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry’, by S. Roccaemail, T. Cubeddu, A.M. Nieddu, S. Pirino, S. Appino, E. Antuofermo, F. Tanda, R. Verin, L.A. Sechi, E. Taccini, A. Leoni published online 20 January 2010, Small Ruminant Research, ^http://www.smallruminantresearch.com/article/S0921-4488%2809%2900292-2/abstract]
.
Pfizer’s advertised image above of an angry Gray Wolf is misleading, grossly inappropriate and unethical. It wrongly and unfairly demonises the wolf species as a predatory threat to Australia sheep. Wolves are not a threat to Australia sheep. They do not exist in Australia.
.
Wolves have been persecuted since before Medieval times in Europe. The feelings of disdain and condemnation they held toward the wolf came from England and other parts of Europe in the form of fables, fairy tales (Little Red Riding Hood), and so-called true stories that sometimes reached mythological proportions. The European hatred of the wolf was the result of much more than fantastical tales of the animal’s criminal nature.
Wolf Prejudice dates back to Little Red Riding Hood A Grimms Brothers fairy tale inculcating the ‘Big Bad Wolf ‘ fear to impressionable children
.
During European colonisation of northern Americas, European puritan Pilgrims thought they had a great moral, religious, and economic duty to subdue the wolf, along with taming the ‘wild west’ wilderness, wholesale deforestation of forests and popping off ‘tribal savages’, otherwise known as Native Americans. The Puritans regarded the wilderness itself as a howling beast, a wolf inspired by the Devil.
So having established the wolf as a representative symbol of unkempt nature, evil, criminality, animalistic desires, and even cruelty, it was natural that America’s newcomers felt a strong moral duty to exterminate wolves. Wolfing, trapping, poisoning, denning, shooting has killed off thousands of wolves. In 1905, cattle ranchers in Montana won passage of a law that required the state veterinarian to infect captive wolves with the sarcoptic mange and release them into wild wolf habitat (Williams 1990).
This irrational cultural hatred of wolves has perpetuated unchecked across northern American through three centuries, forcing the Gray Wolf to the brink of extinction, like the Bison.
The ultimate effect of these predator control campaigns virtually extirpated of the wolf in the United States. In May 1943, the last wolf killed in Yellowstone fell to the rifle of a local cattleman (Loomis 1995). By 1945, the only wolves left in the Western United States were stragglers (Lopez 1978) were all but gone. Except for a small population in northern Minnesota and a few on Isle Royale in Lake Superior, wolves no longer existed in the lower forty-eight states (Lopez 1978).
Gray wolves once roamed the United States from coast to coast and from Canada to Mexico. But in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, wolves were intensively killed in staggering numbers, eradicating them from almost all of the lower-48 by the 1930s. Today, wolves have mounted a comeback, but their recovery is far from certain. Congress, for example, recently kicked wolves in Idaho and Montana off the endangered species list, which opens the door for hundreds of wolves to be killed.
Alaska’s brutal ‘Predator Control Plan’
serving hunters at Nature’s expense – the Grey Wolf is native to Alaska.
The plan has already been in effect for three years, during which time aerial gunners have slain 564 wolves,
all of whom have faced horrors beyond the pale of traditional hunting methods.
[Source: In Defense of Animals, USA’, Read More: ^http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/wildlife/alaskan_wolf.html]
.
Pfizer’s wolf persecuting advertisement incites a public hate message against wolves. It is symptomatic of a Baby Boomer attitude of domination over Nature inherited from ancestral ignorance and perpetuated in childhood by being read ‘Little Red Riding Hood‘ as children. Even in this fairy tale, the wolf was used a a metaphor for evil men. May this Grimms Brothers book be banned for children!
Pfizer management, its advertiser and the owners of The Land newspaper should withdraw the advertisement and make a public apology for denigrating wildlife and perpetuating a primitive fear against Wolves. Pfizer claims that it:
“incorporates protection of the environment, health and safety (EHS) into how we run our business. Environment, Health and Safety policy commitments set our direction and align with our company mission. Our policy is brought to life through strategic and operational decisions made daily by thousands of colleagues, guided by company values and effective management systems.”
The following article is from the Tasmanian Times entitled ‘This is just plain wrong. Why is it allowed to continue?‘ contributed by Tasmanian resident Prue Barratt 20120614. Tigerquoll has contributed to the debate condemning prescribed burning. Further investigation has revealed the extent of the bush arson culture on the Island and is included below.
What’s left of Tombstone Creek old growth rainforest in Tasmania after a ‘Planned Burn’This wet forest was dominated by sassafras, myrtle, tree-ferns and tall Eucalyptus after logging and subsequent regeneration burn, 2006. It is situated at the headwaters of the South Esk River catchment water supply for the town of Launceston.
(Photo by Rob Blakers, 2006)
.
‘My name is Prue Barratt and I live in Maydena in the Derwent Valley (Tasmania). I’m writing this to highlight what small towns around this state have to deal with in Autumn and Winter.
Today (Wednesday) started off as a spectacular crisp winter’s day; one of a few really beautiful days we get through our colder months. So I was excited to get outside for the day to enjoy the sun. But by the time I organised myself to venture out it was too late … as I opened my front door I was confronted by smoke … it was literally blowing in my door.
I covered my nose and stepped out to see what was going on and realised there were fires right around our little town; not one fire but a two or maybe three, I couldn’t actually see how many because I couldn’t see and I could hardly breath, I stepped back inside, grabbed the camera, and took the pictures above; this was the view from my roof … 360 degrees surrounded by smoke.
It was one of the worst smoke-outs I had experienced whilst living here and by the time I got back inside I reeked of smoke.
This is just plain wrong. It is the 21st Century on a planet that is worried about carbon pollution! Our leaders need to put an end to these archaic practices now. There is no need to subject communities or the environment in general to this kind off filthy practice.
Tasmania already has one of the country’s highest rates of asthma allergies and lung problems. Why is this allowed to continue? Tassie is supposed to be the “Clean Green State”.
I’m pretty sure the tourist bus loaded with people which crawled through town didn’t think it was a clean green state. I’m pretty sure they were horrified that this happens in a supposed developed country every year.
When your eyes are stinging and you are too scared to open the doors of your home because your house will become unbearably flooded with smoke; when you are concerned for the wellbeing of old and frail family members because you just can’t get away from it unless you completely pack up and leave for the night …
You feel like a prisoner in your own home … in country in this day and age.. There is a serious problem!
Postscript: I just needed to add to my article that three Norske Skog (Boyer pulp mill) employees just turned up on my doorstep and apologised for all the smoke. They weren’t burning coupes but were asked by a couple of locals to burn piles close to their houses; most of the coupes were already burnt earlier in the season, so I need to acknowledge that … but the whole burning off thing needs to stop regardless. They said they were looking into alternatives but it needs to stop now; not later. They have had long enough to change the way they do things … at our expense.’
[end of article]
.Smoke-filled atmosphere engulfing Maydena, South West Tasmania
(Photo by Prue Barratt, April 2012)
.
In 2009 paper maker, Norske Skog, with its pulp mill plant situated at Boyer on Tasmania’s Derwent River, axed 50 jobs as a combined consequence of its automation upgrade to its pulp mill plant and due to the structural downturn in paper sales by its newspaper clients.
Ed: Newspapers are losing advertising revenue to Internet based businesses like Seek.com, CarSales.com.au, and HomeSales.com.au and so selling less newspapers and so buying less paper from the likes of Norske Skog.
Pile burning and forest (coupe) burning by Norske Skog is typical business-as-usual deforestation across Tasmania, not only by the forestry industry but by National Parks, the Tasmanian Fire Service and by rural landholders. It is all part of an inherited colonial cult of bush arson that is a key threatening process driving habitat extinctions across the island. Prescribed burning, aka ‘hazard reduction’, is a euphemism for State-sanctioned bush arson which is endemic practice not only across Tasmania’s remanining wild forests, but throughout Australia. It is a major contributor to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, which are what many scientists argue are Man’s cause of global warming and climate change.
The Gillard Labor Government is about to introduce a Carbon Tax on 1st July 2012, whereby Australia’s major industrial polluters must pay a Carbon Tax of $23 per tonne. Yet the many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of timber that are burnt by bushfires is somehow excluded – whether it be lightning ignitions allowed to get out of control, or deliberate State-sanctioned bush arson. This makes the Carbon Tax nothing but discriminating political greenwashing, with minimal climate impact. Meanwhile, and more critically, Australia’s ecology, regions by regions, is being driven closer to extinction by destructive bushfire management.
.
Comments to Prue’s article by Tigerquoll
.
‘CEO Bob Gordon and his Forestry Tasmania (FT) forest marauders along with his partners in eco-crime Tasmania Fire Service (TFS) Chief Officer Mike Brown need to be paying Julia’s Carbon Tax. But instead of $23 per tonne, it ought be $23 per cubic metre.
Send the two organisations broke. Do not donate to the TFS bastards. They light more fires than they put out. ‘Fuel’ Reduction is a euphemism for bush arson. It gives ‘em somthing to do in the off season. It reflects the helpless defeatism of Tasmania’s non urban fire emergency service denied proper and effective government resources to put out serious wildfires when they occur.’
.
TFS bastards setting fire to native forests is defeatism, knowing that unless native vegetation is converted to sterile parkland that in a real wildlife it is every man for himself.
They even have removed the ‘Low Fire Risk’ category and added a ‘CatastrophicFire Risk’ category. They may as well add an ‘Armageddon’ category and be done with it! It is defeatism at its worst.
Local case in point – look recent Meadowbank Fire near Maydena in February this year east of Karanja. It started on Saturday, reportedly by “accident” at the Meadowbank Dam and burnt out 5000 hectares. Two days later was still officially ‘out of control’. The meaningless and flawed motto of ‘Stay or Go’ was supplanted by the false sense of security of ‘Prepare, Act, Survive’. In reality the pragmatic community message ought to be ‘You’re On Your Own’.
This Tassie Dad’s Army fire agency is more adept at starting bushfires than putting them out.
The under-resourced, raffle funded volunteer dependent model is abject Government neglect of emergency management. Every time someone criticises the non-urban fire fighting performance, the government bureaucracy and politicans hide behinds the nobleness of community volunteers.
Imagine if URBAN fire fighting was volunteer dependent on someone’s pager going off? Goodbye house.
I feel for the volunteers, but have no respect for the policy or organisation.’
Here’s a question..what is the impact on Tasmanian fauna?
Here’s some research…
“It’s spring, and soon we’ll start to get sensationalist stories predicting a horrendous bushfire season ahead. They will carry attacks on agencies for not doing enough to reduce fuel loads in forests close to homes, for unless those living on the urban fringe see their skies filled with smoke in winter they panic about losing their homes in January.
Fighting fires with fear is a depressing annual event and easy sport on slow news days. Usually the debate fails to ask two crucial questions: does hazard reduction really do anything to save homes, and what’s the cost to native plants and animals caught in burn-offs?
…A new scientific paper published in the CSIRO journal Wildlife Research by Michael Clarke, an associate professor in the department of zoology at La Trobe University, suggests the answer to both questions is: we do not know.
Much hazard reduction is performed to create a false sense of security rather than to reduce fire risks, and the effect on wildlife is virtually unknown.’
State-sanctioned bush arson in Tasmania
[Source: http://www.forestrytasmania.com/fire/fire1.html]
.
Bushfires, their smoke and heat, contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. So Bushfire Management has an obligation to reduce bushfires, not create them. Bushfire Management needs to pay a Carbon Tax just like any other industrial polluter.
.
.
‘Forestry tries to spin results of CSIRO Emissions Study’
..more smoke and mirrors from an out-of-touch agency.
‘The Tasmanian Greens today said that a CSIRO study comparing smoke emissions from wood-heaters with forestry burn-offs did nothing to justify Forestry Tasmania’s outdated and unsustainable management practices. The study, commissioned by Forestry Tasmania, found that the majority of smoke pollution in specific parts of the Huon Valley during 2009 and 2010 was caused by wood-heater emissions.
Greens Forestry spokesperson Kim Booth MP said that these results aren’t surprising, particularly in the more densely populated areas such as Geeveston and Grove where the study was conducted.
“This is not a case of one type of smoke pollution being better than another. All smoke emissions are an unwanted nuisance for the community, particularly for those with pre-existing respiratory problems such as asthma.”
“The commissioning and release of this study by Forestry Tasmania is another obvious attempt to justify their so-called regeneration burns. That’s despite the Environment Protection Authority identifying numerous breaches of guideline safety levels for particle emissions caused by burn-offs.”
“We need to be working as a community to reduce all smoke emissions and improve air quality. This means that we must work to educate people on the importance of installing heaters that burn efficiently, and comply with Australian standards.”
“Forestry can’t play down the negative impact of its burn-offs. The Greens receive many complaints from people suffering from respiratory problems, such as asthma, who have no option in some cases but to pack up and leave home during the forest burns season.”
“Proper systems need to be put in place, or its time these burns were stopped once and for all.”
2010: Escaped Controlled Burn at Ansons Bay in mid-Summer
.
‘The derived fire location..corresponds to a wildfire at Ansons Bay(north-east Tasmania, near Bay of Fires) , listed on the Tasmanian Fire Service (TFS) webpage on the 23rd of January.
This fire had burnt out 100 ha on 23rd January 2010, and had burnt a total of 200 hectares when reported as extinguished on the 26th.
The fire was reported as an escaped permit burn. The permit burn was ignited on the 22nd of January 2010. The local TFS brigade responded to the wildfire at 14:00 EDT on the 23rd. The wildfire burnt mainly in grassland.
Smoke from a bushfire at Ansons Bay on the 23rd of January 2010 moved westwards towards the Tamar River. The BLANkET air stations at Derby, Scottsdale and Lilydale each detected the smoke as it moved. Ti Tree Bend station(Launceston) and the Rowella station in the lower Tamar also detected the smoke. Derby is approximately 35 km from the fire location, while Ti Tree Bend and the Rowella stations are approximately 100 km from the burn. The peak 10–minute PM2.5 concentrations at these stations were of order 10 to 15 μg m−3.
At Rowella the hourly–averaged PM2.5 reached to near 20 μg m−3 near 21:00 AEST.
[Source: ‘Blanket Brief Report 7: ‘Smoke from a bushfire at Ansons Bay, north–east Tasmania moving into to the Tamar Valley 23rd January 2010’, Air Section, Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Tasmanian Government, February 2011, ^http://epa.tas.gov.au/Documents/BLANkET_Brief_Report_07.pdf, Read Report]
.
.
Tasmanian Forest Industry – its case for burning native forests every year
.
‘The Tasmanian forest industry planned burning program, which includes both burning for forest regeneration, and burning for property protection generally commences in mid-March if conditions are suitable.
.. The Coordinated Smoke Management Strategy developed by the Forest Practices Authority is being used by the Tasmanian forest industry.
As of 2011, all smoke complaints are being received and investigated by the Environment Protection Authority, a Division of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. [Ed. But the EPA has no watchdog besides the community, so it can be as incompetent, as negligent, as complicit, as dismissive, as colluding with its sister Tasmanian Government agencies all it likes. The EPA does not have any law that requires it to be publicly transparent. The photos in this article evidence the Tasmanian EPA as an ineffectual and spurious organisation.]
.
Forest Regeneration
Fire is an important part of the life cycle of Eucalypts. In nature most eucalypt species require the disturbance provided by fire to regenerate. Eucalypt seeds and seedlings need a mineral soil seedbed, abundant sunlight and reduced competition from other plants to establish and grow. In nature this situation is provided by a major wildfire. Tasmanian forest managers mimic nature by using fire in a planned and controlled way to re-establish healthy fast growing trees after harvesting.
Planned burns are part of an industry-wide programme by :
Forestry Tasmania (FT)
The Forest Industries Asssociation of Tasmania (FIAT).
Tasmania Fire Service
Parks & Wildlife Service, Tasmania.
.
Forests & Timber
Forests managed for timber production take more carbon out of the atmosphere over time than unmanaged forests locked up in reserves. Tasmania currently has 47% of forests locked up and unmanaged.
Timber from managed forests is used to build an array of structures from houses to multi-level buildings, sports arenas to architecturally designed public spaces. Timber is light and easy to work with and allows for flexibility and efficiency in design. Timber is warm, aesthetically pleasing and most importantly, renewable. Environments rich in timber have a kinship with nature and make people living and working in them feel at one with the outdoors.
It is so important, in these tough economic times, to use local products. Tasmanian timber produced in the state comes from sustainably managed forests, administered under processes established by Government. In addition, all public and most private forests in Tasmania are third party certified as being sustainably managed by the Australian Forestry Standard. Tasmanian timber is a particularly environmentally friendly choice and we should be using more wood to help combat climate change.
Wood is stored greenhouse gas – held together with stored sunlight. If we are serious about trying to address greenhouse and climate change problems, we should be growing and using more forests, for sustainable energy-efficient products that store carbon and for sustainable biomass-based energy systems.
Harvesting a forest results in the release of some carbon dioxide back into the air from which it came however a considerable portion remains stored in resulting forest products such as furniture, timber for housing and a myriad of paper products.
Ed: Fire is unnatural in old growth wet Eucalypt forests. Many forest plant species are fire sensitive so will not recover in teh evnt of a fire. No fauna are fire tolerant – they either burn to death or die after fire from starvation, exposure or predation. Those who burn forests have no idea of the impacts upon fauna populations, nor the impacts of fire upon biodiversity. Their lay observation upon seeing regrowth of some species is that setting fire to forest habitat must be ok.
Those who perpetuate and extend this myth, fabruicate the notion that fire is healthy and indeed essential for forest regeneration and survival. All new recruits of the Tasmanian Forest Industry, Tasmania Fire Service and Parks & Wildlife Service are duly indoctrinated to this dogma. Of course it is unsubstantiated crap. Al one needs do is walk through an ancient Styx forest that has not been burnt for hundreds of years to disprove the myth.
Those vested interests who stand to profit from deforestation and exploitation of native forests, brandish all protected forest habitat as being ‘locked up’ and ‘unmanaged’. The ecological values of the forests are dismissed as worthless. It is no different to 17th Century traders denied access to Africans for the slave trade.
Timber that is from native old growth forests is not “renewable” unless the industrial logger is prepared to wait 500 plus years to harvest. Logging old growth is eco-theft and irreversibly ecologically destructive.
Tough economic times means that the smart investment is into sustainable industries where there is strong market demand and growth for products not vulnerable to buyer rejection on the basis of immoral sourcing or production.
Biomass-based energy is a technical euphemism for burning forests, which is unacceptable because is causes green house gas emissions. Buring natiuve forests also drive local habitat extinctions.
Use LESS wood NOT more!
2010: Smoke rises into the sky above the Huon Valley in southern Tasmania as the state’s Forestry Department (Forestry Tasmania) conducts fuel-reduction burns on April 18, 2010
[Source: ‘Anger over smoke haze prompts review’ , ABC Northern Tasmania, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/19/2877011.htm?site=northtas]
.
Parks & Wildlife Service – its case for burning native forests every year
.
‘Planned burning is an important part of fire management designed to maintain biodiversity and to reduce the risk posed by bushfires to people, houses, other property and the natural environment. Fire plays a major role in the ecology of the Tasmanian natural environment. Fire can be a vital force in maintaining healthy bush. But in the wrong place at the wrong time, it can also lead to the destruction of unique vegetation communities, human life and property.
Our diverse vegetation communities have differing responses to fire, from potentially devastating impacts in alpine areas and conifer forests, to ecologically sustainable effects in buttongrass moorlands and dry scelerophyll forest. Tasmania’s unique fauna has some interesting adaptations to fire. For some species, it is essential for their habitat requirements.
‘The Parks and Wildlife Service is responsible for the management of bushfires on all reserved land in Tasmania.
This management includes:
control of unplanned bushfires
planned burning to reduce fuel loads and make fire control easier and safer
planned burning to help maintain biodiversity, promote regeneration of plants that depend on fire and to maintain suitable habitat for animals
maintaining assets that assist with bushfire control, for example, fire trails, firebreaks and waterholes.
.
Planned Burning of Tasmania’s National Parks (to date) for 2012
The first planned burn area in the table above labelled as ‘Narawntapu‘ applied to Narawntapu National Park, specifically at Cosy Corner, Bay of Fires Conservation Area, in north-east Tasmania. The ecology is renowned for its Wombats and Tasmanian Devils. Where do they go when Parks Service starts fires?
Tasmania’s famous ‘Bay of Fires’
(Narawntapu National Park)
.
The posted notice read:
‘Parks and Wildlife Service is today (Tuesday 8 May) conducting a fuel reduction burn in the Bay of Fires Conservation Area south of St Helens at the Cosy Corner North campground. The burn is about 20 hectares. The objective is to reduce fuel loads to provide protection for the campground in the event of a wildfire.’
So somehow the planned burn of 20 hectares extended to nearly 800 hectares inside the protected National Park! Was this yet another escaped burn? Where is the ecological report of damage to flora and fauna? So much for the National Parks motto ‘leave no trace’. How hypocritical!
.
“How can walkers help keep Tasmania wild and beautiful?
Leave No Trace is an internationally accepted way of minimising impacts on the places we visit.”
~ Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania
.
The National Park before the burn
.
A wombat in Narawntapu National Park cannot run from fire
.
The Burn Area of nearly 2800 hectares of Tasmania’s National for 2012, translates to 28 square kilometres.This is that aggregate area relative to Hobart – the entire map above!It’s like Hobart’s 1967 Black Tuesday every year in Tasmania’s National Parks
.
Forest Smoke across southern Tasmania, from planned burning, April 2008
.
Tasmania Fire Service – its case for burning native forests every year
.
Ed: It doesn’t just have one programme, but two. One programme to burn native forests every year, the other to slash and bulldoze access to get good access to burn the native forests.
.
Fuel Reduction Programme
‘Each summer, bushfires in our forests pose a significant threat to communities in rural areas, and on the rural-urban interface. Large, uncontrollable bushfires can have serious consequences for Tasmanians. The Tasmanian Government has committed funds towards a program of planned fuel reduction burns to help protect Tasmanians from the threat of wildfires. The program will see the State’s three firefighting agencies, Forestry Tasmania, the Tasmania Fire Service and the Parks and Wildlife Service combine their expertise in a concerted program aimed at reducing fuel loads around the state.
The objective of the inter-agency Fuel Reduction Burning Program is to create corridors of low fuel loads to help prevent large wildfires. The program complements but does not replace fuel reduction burning and other means of fuel reduction close to houses and other assets.’
.
Bushfire Mitigation Programme
‘The Bushfire Mitigation Programme provides funds for construction and maintenance of fire trails and associated access measures that contribute to safer sustainable communities better able to prepare, respond to and withstand the effects of bushfires.
The program is administered by Australian Emergency Management (AEM) within the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department. Tasmania Fire Service is the lead agency in Tasmania for the Bushfire Mitigation Program.
In the 2009 Budget the Australian Government announced funding of $79.3m over four years for a new Disaster Resilience Program (DRP).
The DRP will consolidate the existing Bushfire Mitigation Program (BMP), the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) and the National Emergency Volunteer Support Fund (NEVSF) in an effort to increase flexibility for the jurisdictions and streamline the associated administration for both the Commonwealth and the States and Territories.
The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department is currently working with representatives from each jurisdiction to ensure that the transition to the new DRP is as smooth as possible.
The DRP will commence in 2009-10 and details of the funding arrangements, program guidelines and implementation plans will be announced by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s department and disseminated to the relevant agencies and stakeholders in each jurisdiction in due course.’
Smoke haze from burnoffs pushed Tasmania close to breaching air safety standards last week.
In one 24-hour period, emission levels from the forestry regeneration and fuel-reduction burns “were approaching the standard”, state environmental management director Warren Jones told the Sunday Tasmanian.
Elevated particle levels had been detected in Launceston and Hobart on several days during the week.
A Sunday Tasmanian investigation into the smoke haze has revealed:
Between 5000ha and 7000ha is earmarked for forestry regeneration burns this season.
About 70,000ha of the state’s forest was razed by wildfire in the past summer.
The smoke contains a mix of carbon monoxide, tar, ash, ammonia and known carcinogens such as formaldehyde and benzene.’
The Tasmanian Greens today said that the Parliament needs to commission an independent study into the total social, environmental and economic costs of forestry burns, as they continue to emit pollutants into the air causing distress to the many Tasmanians suffering from respiratory complaints, and also impacting on Tasmania’s clean, green and clever brand.
Greens Health spokesperson Paul ‘Basil’ O’Halloran MP burn-off practice as outdated, old-school and not in line with appropriate practice today, especially when it continues to put thousands of Tasmanians with respiratory complaints in distressing situations. These airborne emissions impact disproportionately on children.
“Once again Tasmania’s beautiful autumn days are blighted by the dense smoke plumes blocking out the sun and choking our air,” Mr O’Halloran said.
“This is an unacceptable situation. It compromises Tasmanians’ health, our environment, and is an insult to common-sense.”
“The Greens are calling for the Minister to commission independent social, environmental and economic impact study of these burns.”
“Tasmania’s tourism industry also has reason for concern over this due to the plumes of smoke that choke up the air sheds and appear as a horrible blight on the Tasmanian Landscape.”
“We also want to see an end to these burns, and are calling on the Minister to consult with the community to establish a date by which this polluting practice will end once and for all.”
“It is also concerning at the impact these burns have on Tasmania’s biodiversity and threatened species such as the Tasmanian Devil, burrowing and freshwater crayfish, and a myriad of other plant and animal species.”
“The annual so-called forest regeneration burns have just commenced with Forestry Tasmania alone intends to conduct 300 coupe burns over five districts, and this will emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change, not to mention the risk this poses for the many Tasmanians who suffer from respiratory complaints such as Asthma,” Mr O’Halloran said.
The Killing of Wild Tasmania – Extinction by a Thousand Fires
.
These photographs provide an illustration of current Tasmanian forestry practices. The photos are from Coupe RS142E, in the upper valley of Tombstone Creek, one kilometer upstream from the Tombstone Creek Forest Reserve in the northeast highlands of Tasmania. Tombstone Creek is a tributary of the upper South Esk River, the headwaters of the water supply for Launceston.
Majestic ancient Rainforest in Tombstone Creek (c.1000 AD to 2006)BEFORE the Tasmanian Government’s State-sanctioned arson
(Photo taken in 2003)
.
AFTER
(Photo taken in October 2006)
‘I first came upon this forest in May 2003, and was so struck by it’s beauty that I made several return visits during the following 12 months. This steep valley-side supported a wet and mossy forest characterized by myrtles, blackwood, tall eucalypt emergents, groves of tree-ferns up to eight meters high and some of the largest sassafras that I have seen anywhere in Tasmania. Many of the sassafras trees had trunk diameters of one meter or more at chest height.
This forest was clear-felled by cable-logging in the summer of 2005 and burnt in an exceedingly hot fire in April 2006. All of the rainforest trees were killed outright. The site is steep and soils are sandy and the valley side was left in a condition which was highly vulnerable to severe soil erosion. This coupe is bordered by some areas that were logged within the last 10 years or so, and the regrowth in these adjacent coupes is a mix of wattle and eucalypt. A narrow strip of rainforest remains at the new coupe’s lowest edge, along Tombstone Creek, but recolonization by the rainforest trees cannot occur, due to the competitive advantage of the eucalyptus and wattles in a full sunlight situation. This is especially so in the context of a drying climate. Simply put, the process enacted here is conversion, in this case from a mature mixed rainforest dominated by myrtle and sassafras, with eucalypt emergents, to an uncultivated crop of wattle and, presumably, the aerially sown eucalypt species.
In this process of conversion, which is far from being confined to this particular coupe, two options are precluded. Firstly, the option for the natural forest to continue to exist for it’s own sake and to develop towards rainforest, a point from which, given the age of the eucalypts, it was not far removed. The second opportunity forgone is for the possibility of alternative uses of species other than wattle and eucalypt, including wood uses, for future generations of people.
Other negative and significant ecological impacts have occurred here, including devastating effects on wildlife, altered hydrology, atmospheric pollution, weed invasion and not least, the release of massive amounts of carbon, previously sequestered within the soil and the living vegetation, into the atmosphere.
The scenes depicted here are all within 100 meters of each other. The forest scenes were photographed in 2003, the other scenes in October 2006.
‘It’s spring, and soon we’ll start to get sensationalist stories predicting a horrendous bushfire season ahead. They will carry attacks on agencies for not doing enough to reduce fuel loads in forests close to homes, for unless those living on the urban fringe see their skies filled with smoke in winter they panic about losing their homes in January.
Fighting fires with fear is a depressing annual event and easy sport on slow news days. Usually the debate fails to ask two crucial questions: does hazard reduction really do anything to save homes, and what’s the cost to native plants and animals caught in burn-offs?
A new scientific paper published in the CSIRO journal Wildlife Research by Michael Clarke, an associate professor in the department of zoology at La Trobe University, suggests the answer to both questions is: we do not know.
What we do know is a lot of precious wild places are set on fire, in large part to keep happy those householders whose kitchen windows look out on gum trees.
Clarke says it is reasonable for land management agencies to try to limit the negative effects of large fires, but we need to be confident our fire prevention methods work. And just as importantly, we need to be sure they do not lead to irreversible damage to native wildlife and habitat.
He argues we need to show some humility, and writes: “The capacity of management agencies to control widespread wildfires ignited by multiple lightning strikes in drought conditions on days of extreme fire danger is going to be similar to their capacity to control cyclones.” In other words, sometimes we can do zip.
Much hazard reduction is performed to create a false sense of security rather than to reduce fire risks, and the effect on wildlife is virtually unknown.
The sooner we acknowledge this the sooner we can get on with the job of working out whether there is anything we can do to manage fires better. We need to know whether hazard reduction can be done without sending our wildlife down a path of firestick extinctions.
An annual burn conducted each year on Montague Island, near Narooma on the NSW far South Coast, highlights the absurdity of the current public policy free-for-all, much of which is extraordinarily primitive. In 2001 park rangers burnt a patch of the devastating weed kikuyu on the island. The following night a southerly blew up, the fire reignited and a few penguins were incinerated. It was a stuff-up that caused a media outcry: because cute penguins were burnt, the National Parks and Wildlife Service was also charcoaled.
Every year since there has been a deliberate burn on Montague, part of a program to return the island to native vegetation. Each one has been a circus – with teams of staff, vets, the RSPCA, ambulances, boats and helicopters – all because no one wants any more dead penguins.
Meanwhile every year on the mainland, park rangers and state forests staff fly in helicopters tossing out incendiary devices over wilderness forests, the way the UN tosses out food packages. Thousands of hectares are burnt, perhaps unnecessarily, too often, and worse, thousands of animals that are not penguins (so do not matter) are roasted. All to make people feel safe. Does the burning protect nearby towns? On even a moderately bad day, probably not. Does it make people feel better? Yes.
Clarke’s paper calls for the massive burn-offs to be scrutinised much more closely. “In this age of global warming, governments and the public need to be engaged in a more sophisticated discussion about the complexities of coping with fire in Australian landscapes,” he writes.
He wants ecological data about burns collected as routinely as rainfall data is gathered by the agricultural industry. Without it, hazard reduction burning is flying scientifically blind and poses a dangerous threat to wildlife.
“To attempt to operate without … [proper data on the effect of bushfires] should be as unthinkable as a farmer planting a crop without reference to the rain gauge,” he writes.
In the coming decades, native plants and animals will face enough problems – most significantly from human-induced climate chaos – without having to dodge armies of public servants armed with lighters. Guesswork and winter smoke are not enough to protect our towns and assets now, and the risk of bushfires increases with the rise in carbon dioxide.
James Woodford is the editor of www.realdirt.com.au.
The following article was initially written by Tigerquoll entitled ‘175,000,000 Kangaroos Required to Support a Vicious Immoral Trade‘ and published on CanDoBetter.net 20100517.
Some claim kangaroo meat is ‘green’. Some even claim killing kangaroos is ‘better’ for Australia’s environment.
So what if Australian farmers of lamb, beef, pork and chicken transitioned to kangaroo? To this author it is like employing mass murderer Ivan Milat to skin platypus for cheap token tourist purses.
Personal bias aside, Australia’s Federal Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, has highlighted the flawed presumptions of Australia’s roo trade as unviable.
“If we’re lucky, it will be many decades before we know whether these judgments are well based,” Dr Henry said of commercial kangaroo harvest quotas in December… “If they are, this will turn out to be the first instance in human history of the sustainable plunder of a natural resource.”
Dr Henry is at odds with prominent ecologists, as well as the economist Ross Garnaut. Professor Garnaut’s 2008 climate-change review made the case for an increased diet of roo displacing cattle and sheep consumption. The Garnaut report cited a study by George Wilson and Melanie Edwards that predicted a 3 per cent drop in greenhouse emissions if roo numbers rose from 25 million to 175 million, pushing cattle and sheep of rangelands, and displacing some red meat consumption.
Critics on the Henry side question the numbers, unconvinced kangaroo meat could ever replace red meat consumption in Australia to any significant degree.
“A lot of the environmental movement supports eating kangaroos, because people think it is green,” said Daniel Ramp, a biologist at the University of NSW helping set up a think tank on the roo industry with the Institute of Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney.
“But we need to follow that argument through and ask how many sheep or cattle we could displace with meat from a kangaroo.”
On Dr Ramp’s figures, if every Australian were to start eating roo regularly, its population would need to swell from about 25 million well into the hundreds of millions and possibly billions.
Industry estimates put the average amount of meat derived from a single roo at 12 kilograms. If a 12-kilogram meat yield provides 48 people with one 250 gram meal, 24 million roos would be needed for everyone in Australia to have one meal a week.
But quotas prevent the industry harvesting more than 15 per cent of the roo population a year, making a population above 160 million necessary. Providing fillets would require many more roos, while maintaining the existing amount of meat that is used for pet-food could push the required population into the billions.
“Imagine if we had 175 million kangaroos running about?” said Dr Ramp. “The environmental degradation would potentially be large and it would not be safe to drive on rural roads for the sheer number of kangaroos.”
.
Standard roo shooter myths need to be debunked such as the false claims that ‘kangaroo meat is ‘green’, better for the environment and could replace farmed livestock outright.
The ethics of killing wildlife still has not been justified by roo shooters.
The ethics of the means of killing kangaroos and their joeys still has not been justified by roo shooters.
The ethics of encouraging a wildlife export trade in kangaroo meat by Anna Bligh to Russia says a lot about Anna Bligh.
The inherent risk of using kangaroo meat for human consumption still has not been justified by roo shooters.
The lack of effective government controls associated with kangaroo killing continues to be ignored by state and federal governments.
.
Red Meat Consumption
.
The debate over whether we should reduce our consumption of meat is warranted, both from an ethical standpoint and an environmental one. If farmers were paid a decent kilogram price for traditional livestock that factored in the cost of land management and rehabilitation on downgraded farmland, the consumption would reduce as it would become unaffordable to most.
The first step is to make livestock (read ‘meat’ – beef, lamb) a gourmet food – high quality and high price – say $40/kg like fillet steak. Market forces would then reduce the demand. Livestock farmers would need to transition to other more sustainable industries (with government subsidy). The primary industry outcome would see a fraction of the current land being used for red meat production. It would be organic, grass feed/ free range, humane and profitable – but government restricted like the abalone industry.
The other strategy is to develop sustainable alternatives that offer natural nutritional equivalents – heam iron, protein, selenium (antioxidant) , zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, Vitamin D and B-group vitamins (riboflavin, niacin, pantothenic acid, vitamin B6 and in particular vitamin B12).
“But Vitamin B12 cannot be found in plant foods, therefore inadequate intakes of B12 are a problem for strict vegetarians. Lacking vitamin B12 can adversely affect neurological function including memory and concentration.” [Meat and Livestock Australia website]
‘Eating kangaroo meat is, by all accounts, much better for the environment than dining on pork, lamb or beef. The natives emit negligible methane, tread lightly and without contributing to erosion, and have no need for vast quantities of feed intensively farmed elsewhere.
Then why is the Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, ardent conservationist, flashing warning signs about the country’s $250 million roo industry?
Twice in the past six months he has highlighted concerns about kangaroo harvesting in his public speeches. And the issue he raised was not the animal welfare charge most commonly levelled – joeys are killed by a blow to the head – but whether the harvesting of roos is viable.
“If we’re lucky, it will be many decades before we know whether these judgments are well based,” Dr Henry said of commercial kangaroo harvest quotas in December.
“If they are, this will turn out to be the first instance in human history of the sustainable plunder of a natural resource.”
Dr Henry is at odds with prominent ecologists, as well as the economist Ross Garnaut. Professor Garnaut’s 2008 climate-change review made the case for an increased diet of roo displacing cattle and sheep consumption. The Garnaut report cited a study by George Wilson and Melanie Edwards that predicted a 3 per cent drop in greenhouse emissions if roo numbers rose from 25 million to 175 million, pushing cattle and sheep off rangelands, and displacing some red meat consumption. Critics on the Henry side question the numbers, unconvinced kangaroo meat could ever replace red meat consumption in Australia to any significant degree.
“A lot of the environmental movement supports eating kangaroos, because people think it is green,” said Daniel Ramp, a biologist at the University of NSW helping set up a think tank on the roo industry with the Institute of Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney.
“But we need to follow that argument through and ask how many sheep or cattle we could displace with meat from a kangaroo.”
On Dr Ramp’s figures, if every Australian were to start eating roo regularly, its population would need to swell from about 25 million well into the hundreds of millions and possibly billions.
Industry estimates put the average amount of meat derived from a single roo at 12 kilograms. If a 12-kilogram meat yield provides 48 people with one 250 gram meal, 24 million roos would be needed for everyone in Australia to have one meal a week. But quotas prevent the industry harvesting more than 15 per cent of the roo population a year, making a population above 160 million necessary. Providing fillets would require many more roos, while maintaining the existing amount of meat that is used for pet-food could push the required population into the billions.
“Imagine if we had 175 million kangaroos running about?” said Dr Ramp. “The environmental degradation would potentially be large and it would not be safe to drive on rural roads for the sheer number of kangaroos.”
"We're coming to you from the custodial lands of the Hairygowogulator and Tarantulawollygong, and pay respects to uncle and grandaddy elders past, present and emerging from their burrows. So wise to keep a distance out bush."
Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor)
commonly called ‘fairy penguins‘ due to their small fairy-like size
Arrive ashore after feeding on ‘pelagic’ fish in Bass Strait in southern Australia
Map of 19th Century whaling bases on Tasmania’s coastline
Spring Bay was part of that exploitative legacy
Pelagic Pacific Jack Mackerel swim in schools near the sea surface
Long Line Fishing is indiscriminate
Trapped Humpback whale
Caught in a Long Line Fishing net off Tonga in the Pacific in 2009
Sea Turtles are no match for Longline Fishing.
The research and development into these products supports ‘genetically modified‘ agriculture by AusBioech, headquartered at 322 Glenferrie Road, Malvern in eastern Melbourne. [Sources: ^http://www.ausbiotech.org/UserFiles/File/Code-of-Conduct.pdf, ^http://www.ausbiotech.org/directory/details.asp?companyid={FA8C42D7-EC6C-46BD-B065-BAA46BEE1963}&returntourl=%2Fdirectory%2Fsearch.asp%3Fpg%3D41]
The Small Pelagic Fishery of the Eastern sub-area…’is just the beginning’
Yet the Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s (AFMA) map invades two IUCN Sanctuary Zones
i.e. the top two green shaded areas ‘Flinders’ and ‘Freycinet’
10,000 tonne Lithuanian-owned Factory Fishing Vessel ‘FV Margiris’
Recently contracted by Seafish Tasmania to trawl the Small Pelagic Fishery off Tasmania’s north east coast
Its draft of 5.5 metres is too deep for Spring Bay, so it must be operated out of Devonport
[Source: ^http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1220863]
Vast swathe … the Margiris supertrawler. Photo: Greenpeace
Tagged … Greenpeace activists write on the side of the Margiris in the Atlantic off Mauritania in 2011
(Photo by Greenpeace, March 2011)
Greenpeace in The Netherlands: ‘Stop Exporting Overcapacity’
