Archive for the ‘Habitat Advocacy’ Category

Australia’s conservation record sux

Saturday, July 16th, 2011

This article was initially posted on CanDoBetter.net 20090314 by Tigerquoll:

Australia claims a noble record of wildlife conservation. These days we rely upon governments to perform their custodial duties to protect Australia’s vulnerable flora and fauna. But our Australian ground dwelling mammals continue to disappear. Is it because of government policy, neglect, under-resourcing, or condoning of habitat destruction?

The key problem is the lack of independent and unbiased biological and zoological measurement.

Year upon year, habitat encroachment through farming, mining, housing and prescribed burning our Australian ground dwelling habitat and its dependent mammalian species, continues to disappear. Recognised tests of habitat health iinclue the change in numbers of top order predators, the mix of biodiversity, and simply the observed presence of fauna, for instance when bushwalking.

Australia’s city-based environmental conservation movement lobbies from time to time, but seriously, if Australia’s species are to be saved from extinction, ignoring the spin from government agencies that man-made bushfire, farming, roads, mining, housing development is ‘sustainable’, billions invested in wildlife sanctaries will avert Australia’s world leading extinction record.

The extinction risk to Australia’s endemic species (rare, threatened, endangered) is that no government department is internationally legally accountable for monitoring the health of the species nor guaranteeing its survival.

Australia’s natural habitat risks decline in a comparable way to that of the Sumatran and Borneo rainforest habitat of the orang-utan.

Tags: Australia's natural habitat, wildlife conservation
Posted in 07 Habitat Conservation!, 34 Wildlife Conservation! | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

‘Ecological Burning’ – a myth, an ‘eco-crime’

Thursday, May 26th, 2011

[The following article has been borrowed from a section of a previous article on this website: ‘Blue Mountains copping government-arson‘, since this important message has ramifications beyond the natural areas of the Blue Mountains].

.

– – – – – –

.

From the frying pan…

When bushfire management can contrive no other excuse for setting fire to native vegetation, like when native vegetation is many miles away from human settlement and so poses no direct threat; out comes a concocted academic theory called: ‘ecological burning ‘. Over how many beers?

When those in whom our community trusts to put out bushfires, decide instead to start setting fires to bushland, and descend instantly into a betrayal of that that trust, to whom can our community entrust to put out bushfires? Government has been proven to suck.

What has happened to ecological values of the bush and the sense of urgency to put out bushfires that threaten both it and us?

‘Ecological Burn’ Theory

The ‘ecological burn’ theory starts with the premise that because humans have observed that the Australian bush ‘grows back’ (eventually) after a bushfire, it may be concluded that the Australian bush can tolerate bushfires. This hypothesis relies on evidence that selected species of Australian germinate after smoke and fire and the example of epicormic growth of many Eucalypts after fire.
The deductive fallacy of this theory is that all the Australian bush is bushfire tolerant.
This deduction is then extended by unsupported assumption that since the Australian bush is bushfire-tolerant, bushfire must be an integral natural process to which the Australian bush has become adapted to bushfire.
The assumption is then extrapolated to assert that bushfire is indeed beneficial to the Australian bush.
The assumption is then stretched even further to conclude that without bushfire the Australian bush will be adversely affected.
The ecological burn theory then prescribes that by burning the Australian bush, whether by natural or unnatural means, the biodiversity of the Australian bush will be improved.
The deductive fallacy goes further, to suit the motives of the fire-lighters. The outrageous generalisation is made that all the Australian bush must be burnt at some stage for its own ecological benefit.

.

So the ‘Ecological Burn’ mantra has become:

‘Go forth and burn wilderness. It’ll grow back. It’ll do it good.‘

.

Habitat ‘fuel’ gone…so it wont burn now!

.

The perverted irrational logic that Australia’s native vegetation has adapted to recover from bushfire is akin to claiming the human body is adapted to recover from injury such as burns. A wound may heal but no-one seeks to be injured in the first place. And not all wounds heal. A third degree burn to more than 50% of a human body is almost a certain death sentence. What percentage of a wild animal’s body can be burnt and the animal still survive? That’s a perverted question for the fire-lighters.

Broadscale hazard reduction is not mosaic patch-work fire. It is not creating a small scale asset protection zone around the immediate boundary of a human settlement. It is wholesale bush arson that is driving local extinctions. Ever wonder why when bush walking through the Australian bush so few native animals are seen these days? Their natural populations have been decimated through two centuries of human harm – mainly poaching, introduced predation and habitat destruction including by human-caused bushfires and human-abandoned bushfires.

Broadscale incineration of native bushland across northern Queensland

by the Rural Fire Service Queensland.

Habitat ‘fuel’ gone ~ so it won’t burn now!

©Photo by Ann Jurrjens, 20090922.

(click photo to enlarge, then click again to enlarge again).

..

.

Likely Origins of the ‘Ecological Burn’ myth

.

The concept of the ‘ecological burn’ sounds like the academic contrivance that it is. It is an outpouring from a handful of forestry academics who have successfully sold their consulting services to government under a similarly contrived expertise of being ‘fire ecologists‘ or ‘fire scientists‘. Well, at least ‘garbologists‘ work for a living.

After a major bushfire, an affected and sometimes devastated public cries for answers and the media cash in with their newspaper-selling witch hunt. The responsible government politicians and department directors of the bushfire management deflect accountability away from themselves by instigating a tried and tested ‘bushfire enquiry‘. Those enquiries seek expert evidence and so the ‘fire ecologists’ come out of the woodwork, professing expert insight into the reasons for uncontrolled bushfire and contriving theories for better bushfire management. They invariably proclaim ‘I told you so!

With the frequency of uncontrolled bushfires year after year, there have been so many enquiries across Australia, sufficient to fill bookshelves; each one wastefully gathering dust. Yet with the almost annual disaster recurrence somewhere across Australia, the relevance of ‘fire ecologists’ has morphed fire ecology into an almost full-time occupation – generally on the payroll of the government agencies seeking to justify excuses why they didn’t put out the bushfires in the first place.

The origins of ‘fire ecology’ and to the ‘ecological burn’ theory may be at least traced back to Victoria, an Australian state with perhaps the worst record of bushfire management in the country. During 1999 a series of ‘Fire Ecology Workshops’ were held at Country Fire Authority stations across the state. In that year the ‘Interim Guidelines an Procedures for Ecological Burning‘ was published by Victorian Government’s departments: Natural Resources and Environment and Parks Victoria. References to this and related documents may be found by following the links under References below.

It must have been like an evangelistic mission by these new ‘fire ecologists’, leveraging the common human terror of fire into a way of dealing with that fear once and for all. The final solution would go beyond ‘back-burning‘, beyond the ‘controlled burn‘, beyond ‘hazard reduction‘. It means burning the bush before it burns; but this time on a massive scale, taking the fire-fight to wilderness.

The ‘ecological burn’ theory has gone further. It has brainwashed fire-fighters and natural land managers into believing that burning the bush is indeed good for the bush, good for biodiversity. This is a paradigm cultural shift to a sense of ecological righteousness – by burning the bush you are doing biodiversity a favour. And the fire scientists’ proof of their theory is down to the epicormic growth and the selected native plant species shown to be fire-tolerant, and with that fire-tolerance must be ecologically sustainability. As soon as some green regrowth occurs, they are out taking photos to support and promulgate their theory. ‘Look it grows back’ they claim. Except that these same species that recover from fire have ended up dominating the natural landscape.

Fire-Lighters’ bliss

‘A Firelighters’ Bliss‘:.

‘a state of profound satisfaction in lighting a bushfire, the equivalent happiness and joy in doing so, a constant pyromaniac state of mind, undisturbed by gain or loss, so long as the lit bush burns fiercely’. i.e. the aroused state of ignition frenzy by either a closet, suspected or convicted bush-arsonist!

.

So forget Aboriginal traditional mosaic burning theory – so passé and so ineffective (below napalm baseline). So the message is officially clear, if you want to avert calamities like Black Friday, Black Saturday and the demonising of the rest of the days of the week, burn the bush in swathes, lest it burn you first. The theory is ecological satanism. It is up there with the Y2K bug. It has led a wholesale conversion of bush fire-fighters into fire-lighters on a grand scale akin to scientology’s hold on young people in the 1970s. It has culminated in an escalation of prescribed burning to an extent well outside any reasonable justification for protecting human life and property from the risk of bushfire. The ‘ecological burning’ extremists evangelise is that burning should be ‘strategic’ and for strategic zones spanning thousands of hectares of wilderness to be targeted for burning. What they avoid problem-solving is why they don’t put out the ignitions in the first place.

‘Ecological fire’ is a myth that has festered into the greatest ‘eco-crime’ in Australia’s history, second only to 19th and 20th Century widespread clear-felling. The ‘ecological fire’ myth is the most devastating driver of man-made extinctions plaguing Australia in the 21st Century.

A Test for ‘Fire Ecologists’:

Name one case study in Australia published in a peer-recognised scientific journal… in which independent wildlife ecologists have conducted proper before-and-after field tests of fauna-and-flora-biodiversity…where natural (pre-1788) biodiversity has been found to flourish… as a provable result of a broadscale ecological burn!

In August 2000, possibly the country’s chief druid of bushphobia, Kevin Tolhurst, produced a report seeking to justify the previous year’s setting fire to most of the Mount Cole State Forest, situated over 20km east of the town of Ararat in Victoria’s central west district. At the time, Tolhurst was part of the School of Forestry at the University of Melbourne.

Part of the report included, Appendix 3: Guidelines for the Ecological Burning in foothill forests of Victoria, in which an overview of the Mt Cole Case Study was provided. Notably, this report is provided not found on the University of Melbourne website, but that of the Department of Primary Industries of Victoria website. Clearly the ‘ecological burning’ concept stems not from preferred prestigious academic credentials, but moreso from politically motivated Primary Industries exploitive expedience.

The primary vegetation types targeted were ‘grassy dry forest’ and ‘herb-rich foothill forest’ which had not been burnt for an estimated 35 years, according the Natural Resources and Environment (Vic) corporate GIS database.

.

Tolhurst’s report states:

“Mt Cole State Forest was selected on the basis of having extensive areas of long-unburnt vegetation. A couple of areas within the forest had already been earmarked for prescribed burning from a fire-protection point of view. Mt Cole is an extensive area of easily defined forest with a wide range (of) vegetation types, ages, uses and values. The landscape management unit used in this example is about 32,000 ha in extent if which about half is forested and the other cleared for agriculture. There is little functional connection between this forest area and any other forest.”

“..The broad ecological management objective for Mt Cole State Forest, as part of the Midlands Forest Management Area is to : ‘Ensure that indigenous flora and fauna and communities survive and flourish throughout the Midlands Forest Management Area.”

…Flora and Fauna Inventory:

“Species found in study area as a result of a ramble survey of approximately 20 minutes at each location.”

.

Clearly, the motive underlying the so-called ‘ecological burning’ was the irrational fire-lighting cult fear of ‘long-unburnt vegetation’ daring to remain unburnt or so long – a symptom of bushphobia. ‘From a fire-protection point of view’ is the real motive and so it was convenient to just set fire to the lot. So some 32,000 hectares of a surviving island of native habitat was torched. After decades of agricultural land clearing Mt Cole State Forest had indeed been sadly reduced to having “little functional connection between this forest area and any other forest.” So why not just wipe the rest off the face the Earth? It probably stood out like a sore thumb coloured red for ‘high risk on ‘strategic’ CFA maps anyway.

And the blanket ‘ecological burn’ would see to it to ‘ensure that indigenous flora and fauna and communities survive and flourish throughout the Midlands Forest Management Area.”

Perhaps, post-burn, a similar 20 minute flora and fauna inventory was conducted in the CFA truck with a few tinnies, playing… ‘first-to-spot-the-first-bloated-blackened-wombat‘.

Dead Wombat

Defacto Hazard Reduction on the Grose Valley Escarpment, 2006

The fragile yet complex and vital soil biota of the escarpment built up over perhaps centuries,

gone after subsequent rain.

Habitat ‘fuel’ gone ~ so it won’t burn now!

(click photo, then click again for zoom details)

[Photo is ours, so free in public domain]

.

References

.

[1] ‘Management of Fire for the Conservation of Biodiversity‘ – Workshop Proceedings, May 1999, Fire Ecology Working Group (Gordon Friend, Michael Leonard, Andrew MacLean, Ingrid Sieler), Natural Resources and Environment, Parks Victoria, ^http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/0F55F0F75BFB3FCECA257231000D9F4D/$File/Mgt+of+fire+for+Cons+and+Biodiv.pdf.

[2] ‘Appendix 3: Guidelines for the Ecological Burning in foothill forests of Victoria’, Department of Primary Industry (Victoria) website, ^http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/CC122443185E3E38CA257231001076A7/$File/MgtofCons_MtCole_CaseStudy_p21-27.pdf.

* Above references accessed 20110526.

.

– end of article –n

Tags: bush arson, bushfire tolerant, dead wombat, defacto hazard reduction, eco-crime, ecological burn, ecological burning, epicormic growth, fire ecologist, fire scientist, fire-lighter bliss, government bush-arson, hazard reduction, prescribed burning
Posted in 36 Tests of Harm!, Threats from Bushfire | 1 Comment »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

No natural predators except humans

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

White-tailed Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla)

^http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/?p=502 (click photo to enlarge)

.

‘Britain’s largest bird of prey, the white-tailed eagle or sea eagle, is a magnificent, if rare, sight in the wilder reaches of western Scotland.

This massive bird, the world’s fourth largest eagle, with a wingspan stretching 8 feet across, became extinct in Britain in 1918.

Sea eagles were wiped out in Britain due to excessive hunting and egg collection. The last native pair reproduced in 1916, and then there were no more. They were Britain’s largest bird of prey. In 1975 about 82 of the white-tailed eagles were reintroduced from other countries to the island of Rum, a small island off the coast of Scotland. The current human population is about 20, so the eagles should be relatively safe from poaching. Even though Rum is sparsely populated, the new eagles donated by Norway were released in a secret location.

Because of the reintroduction program and various conservation efforts, there are now 52 breeding pairs of the endangered eagles in Scotland. This year these adult eagles have produced about 46 hatchlings, which is a record for reproducing. Depending on the need, about twenty chicks each year are also being brought from Norway.

“I have no doubt that the successful reintroduction of this magnificent bird can continue, and along with the East Coast Sea Eagle Project, ensures that this species can establish territories right across Scotland, restoring a strong Scotland-wide population,” said Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham. (Source: BBC) Read more: ^http://www.care2.com/greenliving/eagle-population-increasing-in-scotland.html#ixzz1Kbn4PYLe

.

Laws were changed during the 1950’s, which helped pave the way for two early attempts at reintroduction in Scotland. A full-scale reintroduction programme got underway on the island of Rum off the west coast of Scotland in 1975 with 82 birds taken from Norway.

The birds were released over a ten-year period and the first breeding success was recorded in 1985. A further 58 young Norwegian eagles were released onto the Scottish mainland and the first of these began to breed in 1998. In 2004, the population is thought to consist of around 80-90 individuals residing in 26 different territories. With the reintroduction programme now complete, Scottish sea eagles are entirely reliant upon Scottish bred young to continue the population. Sea eagles can now be seen on Mull, Skye and passing over many of the other western isles, although it is still a rarity.

Despite its protected status, sea eagles are still persecuted in Scotland. David Sexton, a The white-tailed eagle – also known as the sea eagle or white-tailed sea eagle – is a huge bird with broad wings up to 245 cm (over 8 feet) wide. White-tailed eagles became extinct in Britain in the early 1900s and despite a lengthy re-introduction scheme, their numbers in Scotland are still very low. The work to reintroduce the species has been hampered by the theft of eggs. This has led to local initiatives, such as Mull Eagle Watch, to help protect eagle nests.

[Source: Wildlife Scotland, ^http://wildlife.visitscotland.com/sitewide/featurerepos/sea_eagle/]

.

Habitat

The small population of white-tailed eagle in Britain is found only in the highlands and islands of the west of Scotland. Scottish white-tailed eagles prefer sheltered lochs or sea lochs rather than exposed coastal sites. They also prefer to nest in trees rather than on cliffs. On average, their territories range from 30 – 70 km2, but much larger territories are possible depending on the availability of prey. In Britain, white-tailed eagles are non-migratory. Breeding adults stay close to their breeding territory throughout the year. Non-breeding birds may range quite widely to find sufficient food.

White-tailed Sea Eagle

^http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8465271.stm

.

Threats

White-tailed eagles have no natural predators in Britain. The only threat to the bird’s continued re-colonisation in Scotland is from human activity, by poisoning or stealing eggs, and from degradation of habitat and food resources.

Royal Society for the protection of birds (RSPB) officer based on the Island of Mull explains:

.

“An adult was poisoned in the Highlands in 2003. Its mate died the same way in 2002, so there are still problems for them. Egg collecting is still a threat but local community watches and the police operation against nest robbers – Operation Easter – successfully kept it at bay in 2003.”

.

In total five birds have been killed since the reintroductions began.

[Source: ^http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/white-tailedeagle]

‘The last recorded native white-tailed eagle in Britain was a rare albino (all-white) eagle that was shot in Shetland in 1917.’

White-tailed Sea Eagle

[Source: ^http://bishopstownhc.blogspot.com/2010/01/bhc-members-spot-white-tailed-sea-eagle.html]

.

Sea eagles given more protection

[BBC, 23 March 11, ^http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-scotland-12828674]

.

‘Sea eagles are to be given further protection in a new three-year scheme.

The £80,000 project involves Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) working with farmers and crofters to help the birds throughout the areas where they breed.

Scotland’s sea eagle population has reached a record high since the birds were re-introduced on the Isle of Rum 36 years ago. But they are still considered to be rare with just 52 adult breeding pairs across the country.

Sea eagles lay up to three eggs in March with chicks leaving the nest in late July or August.

SNH will help to protect the birds, which usually nest in trees.

Stuart Housden, director of RSPB Scotland, said: “We are really pleased to have been involved in the development of workable measures that help support the conservation and management of these magnificent birds.”

The scheme will focus on agreements with farmers and crofters as well as promoting the birds potential for tourism.

Jonnie Hall, head of rural policy for NFU Scotland, said: “The aims and measures of the new scheme clearly reflect the inter-dependence of conservation and farming interests.”

An advisory panel will be set up to guide SNH on the key priorities. It hopes the scheme will be running by late spring or early summer.‘

.

White-tailed Sea Eagle

...

.

The Golden Eagle

The Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

^http://tohatchacrow.blogspot.com/2010/12/irish-farmers-suspected-in-another.html

.

ALMA is dead – POISONED – 30th July 2009

“I am truly appalled that yet another golden eagle has been illegally killed in Scotland – the second this summer.”

~ Scotland’s Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham.

[^Read More]

“Another depressing example of the arrogant and outmoded attitude of some estate owners and their employees who treat the law with contempt, and break it with impunity. Their belief that land ownership gives them the right to use or abuse it as they see fit, and their dependency on the protection of ‘sport’ as a business, must be challenged.

Of course, the nature and remoteness of these businesses make them impossible to police effectively; but all the more reason to hand out exemplary sentences, including jail, when case are proven – not only to the keeper, but to the landlord.”

~ Alistair, 20090801.

.

The Badger – a native to Britain

Most people in Britain only know of badgers as road kill mess from their cars and trucks as they drive fast along country roads. Most people in Britain live in the warmth, convenience and security of an urban environment closely in their urban social groups.

Badgers live closely in their own social groups in the warmth, convenience and security of their underground ‘setts‘. Badgers live a whole world away from people, or would if they could – they have become nocturnal in places with high human populations. Over the centuries, as human numbers have exploded across Britain, people have spread further and further taking over and destroying wildlife native habitats, including the world of the native badger.

Few people in Britain will know much about the badger and its ecology, save of course wildlife ecologists, zoologists and the growing number of dedicated ‘badger watchers‘.

Badgers remain one the largest wild animals left across the British Isles. They are beautiful animals. They are native and deserve human respect.

.

Says wildlife photographer from Lancashire, (Michael S):

“As a wildlife photographer, I’m lucky enough to spend a good portion of my time observing the wildlife of this country. Nothing – and I mean NOTHING – is as magical to me as the moment, after much silent waiting around in cold, damp woodland, that the first badger tentatively emerges from its sett, shortly followed by the rest of the family (presumably once the “all clear” has been given). I’ve often been so transfixed just watching them interact and play that I forget to take photos.”

[Source: BBC website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11380921 [Viewed 20110318]

.

‘The European Badger (Meles meles) belongs to the family of mammals known as Mustelidae (possessing musk glands), otherwise known as the weasel family and includes the otter, stoat, polecat, ferret and pine marten. The badger is indigenous to most of Europe including the British Isles, with the largest abundance found within southern England.

‘The name ‘badger‘ is believed to come from the French word ‘becheur‘, meaning digger. Across Britain, badgers occupy a large range of habitat types and they are often found in what’s left of Britain’s native woods and copses, as well as in scrubs, hedgerows, quarries, moorlands, open fields and even in housing estates as the developers encroach on pastoral areas. They are however more abundant in areas where a mosaic of features are present such as deciduous woodland, pasture and arable habitat types. Remember that the badgers and their native habitat existed before the property developers.

Badgers live in setts, a network of underground tunnels, which they dig using their strong claws. Badger density increases with hilliness and a survey undertaken by the Mammal Society has found that 92% of setts in Britain were dug into slopes. Badgers prefer slopes for a variety of reasons. Firstly slopes help the excavation of soil, which can spill down the slope as it is dug. Sloping land is also well drained and more likely to be warm and dry. In colder climates badgers can easily dig to a depth with is frost proof.

As social group has about five badgers in winter and is typically headed by a dominant male and female. Male badgers patrol their territory boundary during the early spring breeding season (February – March) and mark the borders of the territory with dung. If a stray boar (head male) from another colony is encountered the ensuing fight can be particularly fierce.

Although badgers are members of the order carnivore, they are in fact foraging ominvores, meaning they eat a wide range of plants and animals. This has aided their adaptability, as humans have destroyed the natural landscape. Badgers have a varied diet depending on what food available and on the time of year. A badger’s diet mainly consists of earthworms and a large boar can eat as many as 200 earthworms in a single night. Their diet is supplemented with insects, birds, small mamals, fruits and berries, cereals , reptiles and amphibians.

[Source: The Badger Trust, November 2008]

.

Badger – a history of human persecution

.

Badgers have an excellent sense of smell and can find human scent particularly disturbing. Badgers have an elusive nature, inculated from centuries of human persecution.

In England prior to the 19th Century, the badger is believed to have had a wide distribution, but heavy persecution in the 19th Century caused numbers to drop dramatically and by the end of the 19th Century badgers were considered rare. Badgers were largely poisoned, trapped and shot by game keepers and farmers who mistakenly saw the badger as a threat to livestock. Between 1960 and 1972 numabers also were in decline due to increased road construction and vehicle numbers as well as trains causing escallating roadkill of badgers aand other wildlife. In addition, badger persecution has extended to gassing of badger setts, shooting and increased overuse by farmers of pesticides causing badgers to be poisoned and causing reduction in fertility rates.

The passing of the Badger Act 1973 (and amendments in 1981, 1991, and 1992) has helped badger number to recover and today across Britain there are an estimated population of 300,000.

Badger Baiting

‘Badgers were also cruelly persecuted through the 18th Century by the wicked blood practice of ‘badger baiting‘ . Badger baiting was outlawed in the United Kingdom as early as 1835, with the introduction of the Cruelty to Animals Act and the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Badger Baiting was made illegal in 1835 and is currently an offence under the but it has never died out. Sadly, it is the badger’s tenacity, its apparent ability to absorb almost any punishment and still go on fighting, which has made it a target for people who get their kicks from inflicting cruelty upon animals, even today.

Every year, hundreds of badgers meet a horrific death in the name of ‘sport’ in the UK at the hands of terriermen. Many of those who have been caught digging into badger setts have used the excuse that they were after foxes – and many have escaped prosecution by so doing. More than 10,000 are caught, tortured and killed in the UK each year by huntsmen with terriers – with almost a third of these illegal acts being carried out in Wales. Alarmingly, this figure is rising constantly. Terry Spamer, a former RSPCA inspector, believes that there are around 2,000 people involved in badger baiting currently. However, only around three people are caught and convicted of badger baiting each year, while the majority carry on breaking the law.

Small terriers, such as Lakelands, Patterdales, sometimes Jack Russells or a cross-breed are sent down into a badger sett to locate a badger and hold it at bay. The men then dig their way down to their quarry and drag the badger out of the sett. Many diggers attach a radio transmitter to the dog’s collar before sending it below ground then all they have to do is use a radio receiver/locater to determine the exact location of the dog.

There are essentially two types of badger baiters. The first who do it just for the pleasure of killing the badger on the spot and no money is involved. If it’s lucky the badger will be shot but usually the men will set their snarling terriers on the badger and watch it suffer a long and agonising death stabbing it with shovels for good measure. At times, the dogs and the badgers may die when the sett collapses and suffocates them.

The second type of badger baiting involves gambling where large sums of money can change hands. The badger is dug out of the sett in the manner described above and then it is put in a bag and taken away to be baited later on. The badger is taken somewhere quiet for example a barn, shed or cellar and placed into a makeshift arena, a ring or pit, from which it cannot escape. Dogs are then set upon it. Even if the badger is lucky enough to get the better of one dog, the owner may hit or otherwise injure the badger in order to ‘protect his pet’. Ultimately, no matter how well it tries to defend itself, the badger’s fate is sealed. The badger, through injury and exhaustion, will not be able fight any longer. Its back legs are held by a chain to prevent escape. The animals multilated head, minus nose and lower jaw, finished up mounted on a plaque. The baiters will then kill the badger usually by clubbing or shooting it. Gambling is always involved and a winning dog’s value will rise – along with the price of its puppies. An anonymous letter received by Badger Watch & Rescue Dyfed states that badgers are being caught and sold for about £500 for baiting.

Badger Baiting, London, circa 1824

[Source: Henry Thomas Alken, this image is free in the public domain due to its age,

Wikipedia, ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Badger-baiting3.jpg]

Badgers are shy and peaceful animals and not normally aggressive, but will defend themselves if cornered or provoked. A badger has great strength and a blow from one of its vicious claws can do serious harm. Many dogs seriously injured during badger digging and baiting go untreated as their owners are more concerned vets will become suspicious of the owner’s illegal activity.’

(Read More)

Badger Hunting

‘People kill more badgers than predators and natural causes. In most of the countries where badgers live, they are hunted in great numbers for several reasons. Several thousands of badgers are targeted for their fur, meat or just a cruel ‘sport’. In some countries like Germany, USA and Canada, the hair of badgers are used in shaving and painting brushes. In Britain, Badgers are legislatively protected. However, killing badgers in Britain rather continues secretly.

Badgers are hunted in several ways. Through illegal and cruel methods, people dig out badgers from their setts. In several cases, badgers are also snared, shot or poisoned to death. Very often, badgers also accidentally get trapped in snares set up to catch foxes. Quite a many times, the snares are left unchecked for hours or days and the badgers caught up in them are left to their cruel fate of suffering a long agonizing period of capture, starvation, and dehydration, eventually facing a horrible death.

Urban sprawl and intensive agriculture are two main threats to the life and population of badgers. Badgers are creatures of rather a set habitual pattern and are not good in adapting to any change. Under disturbances from people or developments, badgers are forced to quit their habitat and move on or just die out in a helpless state. Quite unknown to people, badgers can also come to the gardens, cultivations and parks of the suburban area in search of food.

Badger hunting in the name of fun or sport or under the belief that they damage livestock has seriously devastated the badger population in some areas like South Yorkshire. In certain regions like Essex, agricultural intensification has resulted in the decline of badger population.

Some people use modern technology to hunt badgers. Night vision equipments enable the poachers to trace the poor animals in the dark, at the same time evading from the eyes of gamekeepers and police personnel. The other technology used in hunting is lighting. In this method, the criminals carry a high-intensity searchlight and locate the animals. Once the animals are disoriented at the sight of bright light, they either shoot the animals or capture them using hunting dogs.

There are also cases of poisoning the badgers, both accidentally and purposefully. Quite often when the poison is meant for killing other wilder life and pests, many poor badgers become unfortunate victims and die. Badger hunting is a serious offense. Unintentional killings of badgers can invite heavy fines and warnings, while intentional killings can lead to jail sentences.’

[Source: http://www.savethebadgers.co.uk/badger-hunting.shtml]

.

Badgers and British Law

Why are badgers protected?

Badgers and their setts are legally protected from intentional cruelty, such as badger-baiting, and from the results of lawful human activities, such as building developments. The legislation, mainly the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (the 1992 Act), has provided a useful tool in deterring the abuse of badgers and in prosecuting those who continue to break the law.

However, it is a sad fact that many thousands of badgers are still killed illegally each year, and the incidents appear to be increasing. Also, due to the nature of the crimes, there are relatively few successful prosecutions.
These notes are intended to provide some background to the law relating to badgers. However, the issue is complex and more detailed information can be obtained by contacting Badger Trust

Threats to badgers

.

Badgers in the UK are threatened by both legal and illegal activities.
Legal activities, subject to compliance with conditions in the 1992 Act, include:

Road and housing development;
Forestry and agricultural operations; and
Badger culling by the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Assembly Government in relation to bovine TB in cattle;

Illegal threats to badgers include:

Badger-digging and baiting
Snaring
Poisoning (including the misuse of pesticides)
Lamping, and
Sett interference

.Relevant legislation

The main legislation protecting badgers in England and Wales is the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (the 1992 Act). Under the 1992 Act it is an offence to:

wilfully kill, injure, take or attempt to kill, injure or take a badger;
possess a dead badger or any part of a badger;
cruelly ill-treat a badger;
use badger tongs in the course of killing, taking or attempting to kill a badger;
dig for a badger;
sell or offer for sale or control any live badger;
mark, tag or ring a badger; and
interfere with a badger sett by:
damaging a sett or any part thereof;
destroying a sett;
obstructing access to a sett;
causing a dog to enter a sett; and
disturbing a badger while occupying a sett.

The 1992 Act defines a badger sett as: “any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a badger”

.

DEFRA’s position on Bovine TB and British cattle as at 6 April 2011

.

[NOTE: This data has been extracted, rather than referenced as a link, due to the changeable habit of DEFRA changing its website. If DEFRA wishes to retain public access to its referenced documents, then members of the public ought to be able to access these freely from DEFRA’s website ].

DEFRA’s website (as at 6 April 2011): http://www.defra.gov.uk/food-farm/animals/diseases/tb/

.

‘Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is an infectious disease of cattle. It is caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis), which can also infect and cause TB in badgers, deer, goats, pigs, camelids (llamas and alpacas), dogs and cats, as well as many other mammals.

Bovine TB is a zoonotic disease, which means it can be transmitted from affected animals to people, causing a condition very similar to human TB. However, the risk of people contracting TB from cattle in Great Britain is currently considered very low.

This page aims to provide a comprehensive introduction to our work to tackle the disease.’ ~ DEFRA.

Latest news

31 March 2011 – Cattle testing positive for TB to be DNA tagged
28 March 2011: Bovine TB surveillance reports for Great Britain compiled by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA)
18 March 2011: Provisional TB statistics for Great Britain are now available for December 2010
28 February 2011: Bovine disease compensation payable during March 2011
31 December 2010: Statistics for TB in non-bovine species are now available
11 November 2010 – Defra launches new support service for TB affected farmers
8 November 2010 – the following material has been made public:

* Safety and efficacy data from the studies used to license the injectable badger vaccine, BadgerBCG
* Computer modelling comparing badger control strategies for reducing bovine TB in cattle in England.
To view this material, and supporting information, please see the Research section of this page

15 September 2010 – the following material has been published:

Government’s approach to tackling bovine TB and consultation on a badger control policy (this consultation has now closed. We will be announcing a comprehensive and balanced TB Eradication Programme for England as soon as possible)
Changes to cattle testing policies
Review of the pre-movement testing policy in England and Wales – April 2006-March 2009
Bovine TB and the use of PCR: Summary of 12 July meeting chaired by Defra’s Chief Scientific Advisor

Key facts and figures

Bovine TB is a largely regional problem, concentrated in the West Midlands and South West of England.
91.9% of cattle herds in England were officially bTB-free on 31 December 2010.
24,899 cattle were slaughtered for bTB control in England in 2010 (compared with 25,557 in 2009).
Government spend on bovine TB in 2009/10 was about £63 million in England.
Monthly statistics are published

What is the case for government action?

Alongside maintaining vigilance over risks to public health, the main rationale for government intervention is to mitigate the economic impact of the disease on the farming industry and to meet EU legal requirements.

The original reason for government’s involvement in tackling the disease was to protect public health. Pasteurisation of cows’ milk, together with a comprehensive cattle testing/slaughter programme, and inspection of cattle carcases at slaughterhouses, have significantly reduced (to a very low level) the risks to human health.

Bovine TB is having a serious impact on many farm businesses and families, especially in the West and South West of England. Thousands of cattle are slaughtered each year at huge financial and emotional cost to farmers. The area of England affected by bovine TB has grown from isolated pockets in the late 1980s to cover large areas of the West and South West of England. The costs to the taxpayer are rising year by year and there is a strong case for early effective action to turn this around.

No single measure will be enough to tackle the disease on its own. We need to use every tool in the toolbox. There is a significant reservoir of infection in badgers and evidence suggests, without addressing the problem in the badger population, it will not be possible to eradicate bTB in cattle. Cattle measures will remain the foundation of our bTB eradication programme but we also need to deal with the disease in badgers. The farming industry, the veterinary profession and government need to work in partnership if we are to eradicate the disease.
Current situation and background

There has been a long-term (over 25 years) increasing trend in bTB incidence in cattle, driven by both cattle-to-cattle and badger-to-cattle transmission.

A wide range of measures is in place to tackle, and reduce further spread, of the disease, including:

Regular cattle herd surveillance testing
Slaughter of test positive ‘reactor’ cattle
Herd movement restrictions on bTB breakdown herds
Zero tolerance of overdue herd tests
Use of additional, more sensitive diagnostic tests
Pre-movement testing (paid for by farmers) of cattle from high risk herds
Farmer advice, including husbandry guidance

Badgers and bovine TB

The Coalition has committed, as part of a package of measures, to developing affordable options for a carefully-managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of bovine TB.‪‪‪

Defra has been looking at all the key relevant evidence, including published scientific evidence from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) and subsequent post-trial analyses, to draw up proposals, which have been published for public consultation.

The government’s proposal is to issue licences to farmers/landowners who wish to cull and/or vaccinate badgers at their own expense. These licences would be subject to strict licence criteria to ensure badger control is done effectively, humanely and with high regard for animal welfare.

We welcome your comments and responses to the consultation (our website also contains details of how to submit your response):

* Consultation documents

As part of Defra’s commitment to tackling the issue of bovine TB, government has invested in a significant research programme looking into the development of vaccines for both cattle and badgers.

* More information on vaccination

A Badger Vaccine Deployment Project (BVDP) is being funded by Defra to assess and maximise the viability of using injectable badger vaccine and to help us move towards the long-term goal of an oral badger vaccine. Badgers on up to 100km2 of land in Gloucestershire are being trapped and vaccinated over 5 years using the injectable badger vaccine licenced in March 2010. The deployment project aims to build confidence in the principle and practicalities of vaccination.

Testing for bTB

The primary screening test for bTB in cattle in Great Britain is the Single Intradermal Comparative Cervical Tuberculin (SICCT) test, commonly known as the tuberculin “skin test”.

This is used throughout the world to screen cattle, other animals, and in a modified version, people for bTB. It is the internationally accepted standard for detection of infection with M. bovis. All cattle herds are subject to regular ‘routine’ testing, the frequency of which is based on the local disease incidence e.g. herds in high bTB risk areas are tested annually.

The more sensitive gamma interferon blood test (g-IFN test) is used in addition to the SICCT test in prescribed circumstances. In addition, Pre-Movement testing is a statutory requirement: cattle 42 days old and over moving from a 1 or 2 yearly tested herd must have tested negative to a bTB test within 60 days prior to movement.

Cattle Compensation

Government compensation is paid to owners of cattle compulsorily slaughtered for bTB control purposes. Since February 2006 compensation in England has been determined primarily using table values, which reflect the average sales price of bovine animals in 47 different categories. The categories are based on the animal’s age, gender, type (dairy or beef) and status (pedigree or non-pedigree).

* Cattle compensation table values
.

Other farmed/domesticated species

In England, bTB is rarely self-sustaining in most species other than cattle and badgers. Nevertheless, DEFRA has controls in place to deal with suspected or confirmed cases in other species.

TB in wild and captive deer is a notifiable disease under the Tuberculosis (Deer) Order 1989 and suspicion of disease should be reported to Animal Health (AH). Following investigation, movement restrictions can be imposed on farmed animals. Defra is currently reviewing the controls for non-bovine species, in particular South American Camelids (llamas and alpacas), goats and deer.

Bovine TB occasionally affects cats and dogs and owners should seek advice from their vet. More about TB in other species.

Research

A significant amount (over £8.7 million in 2009/2010) is spent on a wide-ranging bovine TB research programme with a portfolio comprising projects looking at vaccine development; licensing studies; new diagnostic tests and disease epidemiology to support vaccine use.

Vaccination of either cattle or wildlife is considered a potential long-term policy option for reducing the risk of bTB in Great Britain. As such, a substantial part of the Defra research programme focuses on this.

The injectable badger vaccine, BadgerBCG, was granted a Marketing Authorisation by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in March 2010 to be used for the active immunisation of badgers to reduce lesions of tuberculosis caused by Mycobacterium bovis. The safety and efficacy data required for licensing the vaccine were generated from the following studies:

SE3216 Development and testing of vaccines against badger tuberculosis (Project report to Defra on GLP captive badger safety study)
An investigation into the safety of BCG vaccine in badgers (Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) captive badger study) (PDF 393 KB)
Vaccine Efficacy Study with Bacille of Calmette and Guérin (BCG) Vaccine Administered Parenterally to Badgers (PDF 1.22 MB) – Safety data (Captive badger studies)
Vaccine Efficacy Studies with Bacille of Calmette and Guérin (BCG) Vaccine Administered Parenterally to Badgers (PDF 4.83 MB) – Efficacy data (Captive badger studies)
CB0116 Research Project Final Report – Efficacy testing of BCG vaccine in badgers (Project report to Defra on captive badger studies) (PDF 505 KB)
Field trial to assess the safety and efficacy of Bacille Calmette Guérin (BCG) vaccine administered parenterally to badgers (Good Clinical Practice (veterinary) study on wild badgers) (PDF 630 KB), plus additional supporting data in Appendices (PDF 1.89 MB)

The laboratory studies with captive badgers demonstrated that vaccination of badgers by injection with BCG significantly reduces the progression, severity and excretion of Mycobacterium bovis infection. A key finding of the field study, conducted over four years in a naturally infected population of over 800 wild badgers in Gloucestershire, was that vaccination resulted in a four-fold (74%) reduction in the proportion of wild badgers testing positive to the antibody blood test for TB in badgers. The blood test is not an absolute indicator of protection from disease so the field results cannot tell us the degree of vaccine efficacy. While the findings indicate a clear effect of vaccination on badger disease, data from the laboratory and field studies do not lend themselves to giving a definitive figure for BadgerBCG vaccine efficacy.

A scientific paper summarising the results of the injectable BCG badger vaccine research has been published in the scientific journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Computer modelling (PDF 478 KB) by the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera), completed since the publication of the consultation document, examined the strategies contained in the consultation proposals. These were using badger culling combined with vaccination (i.e. ring-vaccination around an area of culling) and comparing these to culling-only, vaccination-only and do-nothing strategies. The Fera modelling assumed a vaccine efficacy of 70%.

The results of the modelling were that:

a) A combined strategy of vaccination in a ring around a culling area was more successful than the cull-only strategy, which in turn was more successful than the vaccination-only strategy, both in reducing the number of TB infected badgers and cattle herd breakdowns. Ring vaccination partly mitigated the detrimental effects of culling. However, the combined strategy requires about twice as much effort than either single approach done in isolation.

b) Culling of badgers should continue for at least four years to realise a clear benefit. However, low rates of land access for culling, or low culling efficiency, or the early cessation of a culling strategy was likely to lead to an overall increase in cattle herd breakdowns (whilst this is not the case for vaccination).

An injectable badger vaccine was authorised for use in March 2010. Work to develop useable cattle and oral badger vaccines is ongoing. Cattle vaccines are currently prohibited under EU legislation as they are based on BCG, which interferes with the statutory primary diagnostic test, the tuberculin skin test. Vaccinated cattle would therefore react as if infected and herds could not be declared Officially TB Free (OTF).

We are therefore developing a diagnostic test to differentiate between Infected and Vaccinated Animals (a so-called ‘DIVA test’). Changes will be required to EU legislation to allow this test to be used in place of or alongside the tuberculin skin test to confer OTF status.

Further details of Defra’s TB research projects:

Current research projects (PDF 210 KB)
Completed research projects

The Bovine TB Eradication Group for England (TBEG)

TBEG was established in 2008 to make recommendations to the Secretary of State on bovine TB and its eradication. The membership of the group includes representatives from the farming industry, the veterinary profession, Defra and Animal Health.

* More information about the Group
* Highlights of the thirty-first meeting on 15 December 2010

Advice and support for farmers

The provision of better support for bTB-affected farm businesses has been identified as a priority by TBEG. In October 2009 TBEG recommended a number of new measures aimed at helping owners of bTB restricted herds to maintain their businesses and avoid some of the practical problems created by movement controls.

Farmers wishing to find out more about bTB should contact their local AH office and/or refer to any of the TB In Your Herd publications.

For bTB affected cattle farmers we are also developing a package of government-funded advice (based on the latest scientific evidence) covering veterinary; biosecurity; and business issues. Farmers can now access free business support, through the Farm Crisis Network (FCN). FCN agents will provide practical support, sign-post businesses to sources of other more specialist advice, and for those in greatest financial need a dedicated FCN Business Support Group will advise farmers on their options.

Working in partnership, Defra, NFU, Animal Health and Fera have developed TB biosecurity training events for farmers which will be rolled out, across England, later this year.

We are also working with the profession to deliver enhanced private veterinary support. A pilot scheme has been launched in the South West where farmers under TB restrictions for 12 months or more, as well as those experiencing their first breakdown, will qualify for a visit from private vets trained in all aspects of TB: the vets will provide tailored advice to help farmers understand how TB spreads and what can de done on their farm to reduce risks. Joint TB meetings for private vets and their farming clients are also being trialed with two events held in the Midlands so far.

Support provided under the advice scheme complies with EU state Aid rules.

* England support/advice scheme for TB affected farmers (PDF 125 KB)

Defra has worked with NFU and Animal Health to develop a series of ‘quick guides’ for farmers affected by TB, sign-posting them to a range of additional support and providing contacts for further TB advice. These form part of the ‘TB In Your Herd publications’

Relevant legislation and regulations

* EU Directive 64/432/EEC (consolidated version) (PDF 600 KB)
* The Tuberculosis (England) Order 2007 SI No 740
* The Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 SI No 168

Key publications and documents

Government strategic framework
Krebs report: Executive summary Government’s response
TB Eradication plan 2010 (PDF 8 MB)
Independent Scientific Group final report (PDF 2.5 MB) on the Randomised Badger Culling Trial
TB Eradication Group progress report (PDF 800 KB)
TB guidance published by Animal Health

.

Slaughter risk to badgers in Wales [2010-2011]

.

“On 13th January 2010, the Welsh Assembly Government announced that they had given the final go-ahead for a “cull” of Badgers – we use the word “cull” here, but we feel murder, kill, or slaughter would be more accurate words to describe their plans. The Badger Trusthas mounted a legal challenge to this outrageous decision, but despite opposition from some Welsh Assembly Members, who wanted to at least respect the judicial process and halt preparations until the latest challenge is resolved, the Rural Affairs Minister, Elin Jones decided that the slaughter of badgers in Wales will go ahead, regardlessIt seems there is no doubt, Eldin Jones and those in the Welsh Assembly Government who support this action are determined, bullish even, to carry out the slaughter of badgers in Wales.Why? Well, you may rightly ask. Would it possibly be because a number of Welsh AM’s live in rural constituencies and want to appease the powerful farming lobby – a life of a badger, for a vote, perhaps!?Or, could it be that the WAG are anxious to “flex their muscles”; to “show the world” that they can do what theywant; to grab attention and put themselves in the media spotlight by making a massively controversial decision like this?Of course the Welsh Assembly Governments appear to have chosen to ignore a huge amount of scientific opinion and study which shows that such action is not only unjust, as badgers are not the main problem in relation to bovine TB, such a policy would also be incredibly expensive, extremely cruel, and would not work!Rather bizzarely, they have seemingly also chosen to ignore the results the Westminster Governments own research into this matter who concluded that a cull of badgers was not the best way to deal with bovine TB. As a result of their research, the Westminster government have advocated a programme of the vaccination of badgers and the enforcement of stricter controls of cattle as the best methods to deal with the problem.

News of the Welsh Assembly Government’s decision has shocked the world, and reaction from leading animal welfare and wildlife organisations has been swift.

The RSPCA has condemned the Welsh proposals saying that: “a badger cull could cause enormous suffering and actually increase the spread of disease.”

[Source: ^http://www.savethebadger.com/]

.

‘Badger Culling in the Intensive Action Area ‘

On 9 March Elin Jones, the Minister for Rural Affairs, laid the Badger (Control Area) (Wales) Order 2011.

‘This Order allows for a Government managed cull of badgers, alongside stricter cattle measures, in the Intensive Action Area in west Wales as part of the Welsh Assembly Government’s TB Eradication Programme.

If eradication of bovine TB is to be achieved in areas where the disease is endemic, and where the majority of cattle are slaughtered in Wales, need to be addressed. Stringent cattle controls alone will not achieve eradication and need to be implemented with effective badger intervention to deal with that source of infection.

The evidence presented to the Minister to help her make this decision is available here. This included a report on the responses to the Consultation on Badger Control in the Intensive Action Area (IAA) and the scientific evidence that is available on the options considered.’

[Source: Welsh Assembly Government, http://cymru.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/disease/bovinetuberculosis/intensiveactionpilotarea/badgercullingiaa/?lang=en (viewed 20110411).]

.

“The evidence is that a badger cull on a scale or level of efficiency that seems feasible will not solve cattle farmers’ problem – that problem is truly serious. Understandably, the feeling is that something must be done, but the evidence is that it should not be a badger cull.”

– Sir David Attenborough.

.

“It is shameful that the Welsh Assembly Government proposes the protracted slaughter of thousands of badgers apparently with no clear idea of what benefits, if any, could be expected. Even the latest apology has no foundation in science. The broad policy proposals have been missold to the public and, crucially, to farmers. The subject, and the badgers, deserve careful science, not the politics of blunderbuss.”

– David Williams (January 2010), The Badget Trust

.

‘Wales to press ahead with badger cull’

[9th March 2011, The Guardian]

‘Welsh rural affairs minister Elin Jones gives go ahead to much-delayed move intended to control bovine tuberculosis

A badger cull in Wales to curb tuberculosis in cattle could finally be launched, just weeks after the Welsh assembly government said the necessary powers would come into force from 31 March.

The controversial cull was delayed last year after wildlife campaigners won a legal battle over previous plans, but rural affairs minister Elin Jones has always intended to press ahead – mainly in north Pembrokeshire – despite recognising what she called the “genuine concern” of opponents.

About 1,400 of the estimated 35,000 badgers in Wales are likely to be trapped and shot by contractors, the government has said previously, while insisting population levels would recover. TB-infected badgers are seen as prime conduits for TB in cattle, prompting Queen guitarist Brian May to attack “an apparently insatiable lust to take revenge” on the animals.

Separately, ministers in England are gearing up to licence farmers to kill badgers in specified areas, including the south-west, where many dairy farms have been hit by bovine TB, but there have been delays in announcing finalised plans..

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “Bovine TB is a devastating disease and tackling it is complex, so … we need to make sure we get it right. We will be announcing a comprehensive and balanced TB eradication programme for England as soon as possible.”

Expressing “extreme disappointment” at the Welsh decision, the RSPCA said the cull could lead to the “virtual elimination of badgers” from an area of nearly 300 square kilometres. “We believe that this is a dead end policy in every respect,” said Colin Booty, one of its wildlife scientists. “Not only will it result in the death of at least 70% of badgers from the cull area, but it will not resolve the problem in other areas of Wales.”

The Badger Trust, which successfully challenged the original plans, also criticised what it called the Welsh government’s “misconceived and counterproductive proposals … despite significant reductions in bovine tuberculosis over the past two years.” It would study the evidence presented to Jones and “will seek legal advice in relation to the latest decision, which may also be subject to a challenge in the Welsh assembly”.’

[Source: ‘Wales to press ahead with badger cull‘, by James Meikle, The Guardian newspaper (UK) 20110309, , http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/09/wales-press-ahead-badger-cull-tuberculosis)

.

Slaughter risk to badgers across England [2011]

.

‘Badger cull decision faces delay’

[BBC News, 18th February 2011, by Richard Black,Environment Correspondent]

The UK government’s decision on whether to allow badger culling to curb cattle TB in England is to be delayed. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) had planned to announce its completed policy around the end of this month.But BBC News understands it could come as late as May – raising doubts over whether a cull could begin this year.

One source said DEFRA did not want to “mess up” again after abandoning its plans to sell some public forests. Defra came under heavy fire over the plans for England and announced on Thursday that it was scrapping them.

The latest government figures suggest that numbers of cows infected with tuberculosis are falling in England and Wales, which campaigners say makes the case for culling more difficult.

Agriculture Minister James Paice told the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) conference this week that there would be a delay. Sources suggest a number of factors make an announcement before May unlikely.

There are practical issues to be sorted out over how farmers would be licensed to conduct the cull – details that may be crucial to the chances of culling reducing bovine TB, and to the government’s chances of surviving any legal challenge to its plans.

But one source close to the issue said the department’s experience with its plans for the forests were also behind the delay.

“They’ve messed up on forests – they don’t want another one,” the source said.

On Thursday, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman was forced to apologise to MPs over plans to transfer 258,000 hectares of state-owned woodland in England into private management, acknowledging the government had “got this one wrong”. What’s happened does demonstrate that the disease can be controlled without the necessity of killing wildlife” – Jack Reedy, Badger Trust.

The government launched a consultation on bovine TB management in September, Mr Paice telling reporters: “Bovine TB is having a devastating effect on many farm businesses and families… we can’t go on like this.”
Before and after the election, he assured farmers that his government would introduce badger culling.

The NFU is keen to see it begin. But Kevin Pearce, the union’s director of regions, told BBC News it was important that the government took time to get the details right.

“Clearly we want a decision as soon as possible, but this has to be done properly,”

“Defra has to consider all of the responses and all of the facts before making any announcement in response to its consultation.”
Badger cubs playing A “closed season” for shooting would aim to protect badger cubs

The government’s interpretation of the scientific background is that to be effective, culling would have to be done over large areas with as many landowners as possible taking part in a co-ordinated way, and must sustained regularly for five years.

Critics suggest this will not be possible, and that some farmers are likely to drop out if they find they are spending money to hire marksmen without seeing a benefit. The science suggests that fragmenting the cull in this way would lead to a rise in TB incidence, as badgers scatter from their habitual runs and infect new herds.

The NFU wants groups of landowners to form into collective legal entities and apply for collective licences. This idea is under discussion, as is what measures the government could use to force farmers to finish the job if they tried to withdraw.

A further issue that Defra wants resolved is security, with the NFU’s submission to the consultation acknowledging: “There is concern within the industry that by participating in a cull, farmers and landowners will be targeted by activists wishing to disrupt a cull by damaging property and/or by harassment of farming families”.

Delaying the announcement until May could put the chances of beginning to cull this year in jeopardy.

The NFU says it could be done. Cattle screening Opponents say more frequent testing of cattle and curbs on their movement are tackling the disease

But opponents such as the Badger Trust are likely to seek a judicial review, which could mean substantial delays. And if data continues to indicate a reduction in the numbers of cows contracting TB, that would boost the trust’s case that culling is not scientifically merited.

Provisional figures for the first 10 months of 2010 show that for the UK overall, a smaller number of cattle confirmed as TB carriers were slaughtered than during the same period a year earlier – 25,924 compared with 29,243.

England and Wales separately show a similar trend; and this follows a fall between 2008 and 2009.

“If culling had been introduced two years ago, everyone would now be leaping to the conclusion that the reduction was down to culling and saying ‘we told you so’,” said Badger Trust spokesman Jack Reedy.

“Plainly, what’s happened does demonstrate that the disease can be controlled without the necessity of killing wildlife.”

The English delay may also have implications for the Welsh Assembly Government, which – in a separate move under a different law – also wants to introduce culling this year.

[Source: BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12500468 [Viewed 20110411]

‘Sussex farmers in call for badger cull’

[BBC Sussex, 18th March 2011]

‘Sussex farmers have called for a badger cull after eight cases of bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle last year. Farmers want a badger cull to tackle bovine TB but wildlife

groups say it will not eradicate the disease. Sussex farmers have called for a badger cull after eight cases of bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle last year. The National Farmers Union (NFU) said each outbreak cost farmers thousands of pounds and the national herd was being “devastated”. Wildlife groups have objected to any badger cull and have argued the move will not affect levels of bovine TB.

Defra issued a statement which said an eradication programme would be announced as soon as possible.‘Reservoir of infection’The statement said: “Bovine TB is a devastating disease and tackling it is complex, so we need to make sure we get it right.”We will be announcing a comprehensive and balanced TB Eradication Programme for England as soon as possible.”

James Mulleneux, from the NFU, said: “Despite a huge amount of cattle controls in terms of testing and culling, we still have this reservoir of infection within badgers.”

He said the average cost to the individual farmer was £30,000 per confirmed outbreak, which was “huge” for any farming business.

He also said the disease cost the taxpayer £90m a year.

‘Larger herds’

He added: “It’s not just the financial cost, it’s actually the numbers of animals that are being taken out of the national herd.

“In 2008, we lost 40,000 head of cattle. In 2009-10, an average of 30,000. That’s not sustainable.”

But Colin Booty, a senior wildlife scientist from the RSPCA, said: “Defra’s own estimates suggest that even if culling could be undertaken according to a strict set of criteria, the best that one might achieve would be a 16% reduction in disease, not an eradication of the disease.”

And Jack Reedy, from the Badger Trust, said there were more cattle than badgers and cattle were being kept in closed conditions and larger herds, which was “a perfect prescription for passing round highly infectious diseases”.

He said: “In most of the past decade, there was a randomised badger culling trial that cost £50m.

“The main conclusion of that was that killing badgers could make no meaningful contribution and cattle measures were sufficient to do the job.”

[Source: http://www.save-me.org.uk/news/badger/article/sussex_farmers_in_call_for_badger_cull, [Viewed 20110411]

.

A badger ‘cull’ is an ignorant perversion.

It will only result in mass slaughter of native badgers.

It won’t control the spread of bovine tuberculosis throughout Britain’s cattle.

There are more effective smarter solutions.

If only the handful of backward badger biggots in DEFRA, the NFU and the WAG wised up.

.

Vaccinate the badgers!

.

According to an article of The Royal Society ‘Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccination reduces the severity and progression of tuberculosis in badgers’ published in September 2010, ..

‘the Control of bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle has proven particularly challenging where reservoirs of infection exist in wildlife populations.

In Britain and Ireland, control is hampered by a reservoir of infection in Eurasian badgers (Meles meles). Badger culling has positive and negative effects on bovine TB in cattle and is difficult, costly and controversial. Here we show that Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination of captive badgers reduced the progression, severity and excretion of Mycobacterium bovis infection after experimental challenge.

In a clinical field study, BCG vaccination of free-living badgers reduced the incidence of positive serological test results by 73.8 per cent. In common with other species, BCG did not appear to prevent infection of badgers subjected to experimental challenge, but did significantly reduce the overall disease burden. BCG vaccination of badgers could comprise an important component of a comprehensive programme of measures to control bovine TB in cattle.’

[Source: The Royal Society, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/11/24/rspb.2010.1953, (viewed 20110411)]

.

Stop the dodgy farmers spreading TB!

Repeated reports continue to emerge of some unscrupulus cattle farmers hiding and spreading TB infected cattle. These criminals are the ones destroying Britain’s cattle industry and reputation, not the poor old badger. Read the following articles on the problem.

‘Farmers accused of cheating on TB slaughter rule by swapping cattle tags’

[by James Meikle, The Guardian, 31st March 2011]

‘Defra plans DNA tests for TB-positive cattle after farmers ‘disguised affected cows’ identity to avoid sending them to abattoir.

Tagged cows at a Leeds slaughterhouse. Some farmers have hidden the identity of TB-infected stock by switching ear tags, says Defra. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian

Farmers in England face DNA checks on their cattle to prevent illegal swapping of their animals’ identities, an action the government says increases the risk of TB spreading to other herds and wildlife.

The environment department, DEFRA, said evidence was emerging that some cattle farmers in the south-west and Midlands could have been changing cattle ear tags to prevent TB-positive animals being sent to slaughter.

It is alleged that tag-switching has allowed farmers to send less productive cows to the abattoir in place of TB affected cattle.

A spokesman said three cases were already on their way to prosecution and investigations were continuing.

Cattle carry ear tags so that authorities can track their movement across the country, but from mid-April any that test positive for bovine TB will also have a DNA sample taken which will be retained by the government agency Animal Health. These samples will be cross-checked at random, or, where fraud is suspected, against the DNA of animals sent to slaughter.

The agriculture minister, Jim Paice, said: “I am absolutely appalled any farmer would deliberately break the law in this way. The vast majority of farmers with TB in their herds are doing the right thing, and it’s reprehensible that anyone should be trying to get around the tough measures helping to control TB in cattle. Anyone doing this sort of thing will be caught and have the book thrown at them.

“We are introducing this extra safeguard to minimise spread of this devastating disease to other herds and wildlife.”

The alleged evidence of fraud has emerged from an investigation instigated by Gloucestershire trading standards officers who reviewed TB cattle sent to two slaughterhouses. Investigations there and at slaughterhouses in the south-west and Midlands are continuing.

People convicted of such offences face fines of up to £5,000 and six months’ imprisonment under orders to prevent spread of TB, or 10 years’ jail and unlimited fines if prosecuted for fraud.

In 2010, about 6,000 of the 57,000 registered cattle herds in England were under TB restrictions. The new DNA measures come as controversial culls of badgers are threatened in parts of England and Wales as a means of trying to stop cattle contact with the wild animal, which is said by some observers to be an important factor in the spread of bovine TB.

Harvey Locke, president of the British Veterinary Association, said: “This fraudulent activity by a small number of farmers is shocking. Worryingly, it puts the national TB eradication strategies at risk, and urgent action is required to prevent it happening in the future.”

[Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/31/farmers-cheating-tb-swap-tags (viewed 20110411)]

.

‘Fines for bovine TB offences’

[BovineTB.co.uk, 22nd Feb 2011]

‘In January 2010 the largest dairy herd in the west country, Wills Bros Ltd, was put under movement restrictions following the discovery of an inconclusive reactor on their premises at Pawton Dairy, near Wadebridge, Cornwal during a pre-movement TB test. This restriction should have prevented any unlicensed movements onto or off the premises until a second and negative TB test had been obtained at least 60 days after the initial test. However, Defra vet, Cliff Mitchell, noticed an article and photo in the local paper, The Cornish Guardian, showing the Wills family with show results from the National All-Breeds Show at Stoneleigh, Warwickshire. This prompted a joint investigation by Defra vets and Cornwall Council’s Trading Standard’s animal health team. They discovered a range of errors in the herd’s records.

During the investigation it came to light that cattle had been moved between premises run by Wills Bros Ltd without appropriate TB pre-movement testing, in contravention of TB restrictions, without passports being completed and without the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) being informed of the movements.

Also 58 passports were found on the premises for cattle which had died more than seven days previously, the time limit for registering deaths.

In relation to the inconclusive reactor animal, it was discovered that at the time of the pre-movement test it had no official identification, and at the re-test 60 days later the animal was still not identified.

Trading Standards arranged for a DNA test of this pedigree animal and it was found that there was no biological link between it and the animal that was registered as its mother with both the BCMS and Holstein UK, the pedigree society.

John Pascoe, of Cornwall Council’s Trading Standards, said: “During the investigation of this case, serious deficiencies in the recording, reporting and monitoring of cattle births and deaths were uncovered. It is vitally important for the farming industry to adhere to these controls, which enable rapid tracing of animal movements. Non compliance, such as those found, can have devastating effects for the whole of the farming industry if a disease situation develops.” He also said it had not been the first time his inspectors had found problems with cattle passports. They should be returned within seven days of the death of an animal under the Cattle Identification Regulations 2007

Investigators from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Cornwall Council Trading Standards found:

Cattle had been moved between premises run by the dairy without TB pre-movement testing; passports had not been completed;
58 cattle passports were found on the premises for cattle which had died more than seven days previously;
The British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) had not been informed; · DNA tests of the suspect animal found no biological link between it and the animal registered as its mother;
At the re-test 60 days later the animal was still not identified.

In February 2011 Wills Bros pleaded guilty to seven offences under the tuberculosis and cattle identification legislation of 2007, which is part of the Animal Health Act. The company was fined £7,200 and ordered to pay costs of £7,140 at Bodmin Magistrates Court after a report about a prize-winning cow appeared in a local newspaper when the herd was under a disease movement restriction order

The only comment we have found on the case comes from the Badger Trust. Patricia Hayden, Vice Chairman of the Badger Trust, said:

“These offences were committed in the heart of a major bTB hotspot. They risked the health of prime stock at a major cattle show and the wellbeing of pedigree herds and farm businesses all over the country. The discovery of so many passports overdue for return to the British Cattle Movement Service also raises serious questions about the reliability of the system. Transparency is crucial when bovine tuberculosis is causing serious economic harm to farm businesses.

“If other cattle at the show had been infected, unthinking advocates of culling badgers would have been quick to claim their case had been proved. As it is, many farmers in Cornwall could yet be licensed to shoot badgers in the mistaken belief that it will help to eradicate the disease.

“We have been warning the industry for almost 30 years about the danger of moving untested cattle and we have welcomed the belated controls of the last five years. As happened 50 years ago those controls now seem to be succeeding without killing any badgers.”

Source: http://www.bovinetb.co.uk/article.php?article_id=77, (viewed 20110411)]

.

Our Value Judgment:

.

Britain’s national problem of Bovine Tuberculosis infecting cattle is one of a contagious disease caused by Mycobacterium bovis. The solution lies in controlling the disease in cattle, through vaccination, thorough and frequent testing and strict controls on cattle movement.

That the disease has spread from cattle to wildlife, reflects an ineptitude of the farming community to self-regulate and weed out the criminal cattle operators amongst them and the failure of governments to control and eradicate the disease across Britain’s cattle industry. It also reflects an ineptitude of Britain’s environmental authorities to prevent the spread of the contagion amongst Britain’s wildlife.

That the native badger has been singled out and targeted for mass slaughter is pointless and senseless. Science has demonstrated that mass slaughter of badgers will not control bovine tuberculosis. A few backward terriermen with cruel 18th Century mindsets continue to demonised the badger. What these handful of badger bigots propose is nothing short of a hate crime against Britain’s wildlife. The union dues used the National Farmers Union and the British taxpayers funds financing DEFRA are being grossly misused to pursue this perverted policy.

Those public servants doggedly advocating mass slaughter of Britain’s badgers, Welsh Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones, UK’s Agriculture Minister James Paice, and NFU president Peter Kendall should be sacked for incompetence and for inciting hate crime against protected wildlife.

Leave the badgers alone!

Stop the senseless slaughter of badgers!

.

Badger Protection League

“For me, Badgers represent everything that I love about the English Countryside and I am saddened and appalled that the slaughter of thousands of badgers is planned for England and Wales from May 2011. Whilst I have empathy with farmers struggling to control the spread of Bovine TB it has been irrefutably proven that culling badgers will not resolve this issue. A more cost effective, and certainly more humane, way of managing this disease would be to trap and vaccinate badgers before releasing them back into the wild but instead they are to be culled. Farmers/landowners are to be given licenses to cage trap and shoot badgers, or to shoot free running badgers.”

[ Anthony Head, Badger Protection League, UK, 20110328, http://www.badgerprotectionleague.com/article.php?id=34)]

The Badger Protection League ‘is an independent website supported by many societies, groups, VIP’s and Celebrities. We need you to help us in fighting against the proposed killing of thousands of badgers in England and Wales. Unless we make our voices heard, badgers will be killed from May 2011. They will either be cage trapped and shot or shot free running despite the protection legislation afforded to them.

It cannot be emphasised enough as to how important each of these actions are in the fight against badger culling – Please show that you care.
Badgers need you more than ever TODAY!’

Visit their website: ^http://www.badgerprotectionleague.com/

.

The Badger Trust

“Letters sent to David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Caroline Spelman and James Paice. Defra’s sudden, massive and expensive response to the scandal of farmers switching ear tags to foil bovine TB (bTB) controls suggests these crimes are widespread rather than local. Following the disclosure of these frauds the Badger Trust has called for all plans to kill badgers in England and Wales to be abandoned.

An investigation instigated by Gloucestershire Trading Standards exposed the deceptions when reviewing TB cattle sent to two slaughterhouses. As a result of the switching of ear tags, infected animals were being retained in herds. Claims by agriculture industry organisations that only “some” farmers were involved are clearly optimistic with the Midlands and the South West already implicated.”

[Source: The Badger Trust, ^http://www.badger.org.uk/Content/Home.asp]

Badger Trust ‘promotes the conservation and welfare of badgers and the protection of their setts and habitats for the public benefit. We are the leading voice for badgers and represent and support around 60 local voluntary badger groups. Badger Trust provides expert advice on all badger issues and works closely with Government, the police and other conservation and welfare organisations.’

Visit their website ^http://www.badgertrust.org.uk/

Native Badgers

~ a diet of earthworms

.

Footnote

.

‘Until recently badgers did little to damage the hedgehog population because the smaller animals had plenty of places to hide.

However, the loss of hedgerows and the spread of intensive farming has reduced cover.

Although badgers prefer a diet of earthworms, they will eat hedgehogs when they are hungry enough.

The study found that the eastern counties of England are the best place in Britain for hedgehogs.

Fay Vass, of the British Hedgehog Preservation Society, said badgers were only part of the problem.

“The main reason numbers are falling is the loss of habitats and the fragmentation of their habitat,” she said.

Native Hedgehog

~ diet of earthworms

“They like to roam two miles each night, but there are more walls and fences to block their way.”

Preferred badger food …if the badgers are left alone.

.

Somerset badgers fall victim to poisoning campaign

.

‘SECRET World Wildlife Rescue carers are astounded by the amount of badgers admitted to the charity showing signs of poisoning in recent days.

Volunteers at the East Huntspill centre have seen several badgers taken in with neurological symptoms caused by poison. One badger died soon after arrival, another is on a drip and a third is seriously ill. A fourth was revived and carers hope to release it back into the wild.

Centre care manager and veterinary nurse Sara Cowan said:

“I have not seen such critical signs of poisoning in all my years as a nurse. The faeces from one badger was florescent green from the poison – it was that bad. We suspect people are putting poison in food and leaving it near badger setts.”

The situation has been reported to police who are investigating.’

[Source: http://tohatchacrow.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html]

.

References and Further Reading:

[1] The Badger Trust ^http://www.badger.org.uk/

[2] Save the Badger ^http://www.savethebadger.com/

[3] Protection of Badgers Act 1992, ^http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/51/contents

[4] Worcestershire Badger Society ^http://www.worcestershirebadgersociety.org.uk/

[5] Badger Protection League ^ http://www.badgerprotectionleague.com/

[6] ‘NFU publishes position on badger culling‘, Farmers Guardian, 13th Dec 2010, http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/livestock/livestock-news/nfu-publishes-position-on-badger-culling/36166.article

[7] ‘Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccination reduces the severity and progression of tuberculosis in badgers’, The Royal Society, 10th September 2010, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/11/24/rspb.2010.1953

[8] DEFRA on bTB http://www.defra.gov.uk/food-farm/animals/diseases/tb/

[9] Badger Watch and Rescue Dyfed http://www.badger-watch.co.uk/

[10] Scottish Badgers http://www.scottishbadgers.org.uk/

[11] Essex Badger Protection Group http://www.essexbadger.co.uk/

[12] Herts and Middlesex Badger Group http://www.hmbadgergroup.org.uk/

– end of article –

Tags: Bacile Calmette Guerin (BCG), badger, Badger (Control Area) (Wales) Order 2010, Badger Baiting, Badger Control, Badger Cull, badger destruction order, Badger Protection League, Badger Trust, badger vaccination, Bovine TB, Bovine TB Eradication Programme, British Cattle Movement Service, British Hedgehog Preservation Society, DEFRA, existence rights, hate crime against protected wildlife, hedgerow removal, Independent Scientific Group, Meles meles, Save the Badger, The Krebs Trial, Worcestershire Badger Society
Posted in 07 Habitat Conservation!, 23 Conservation Funding!, 34 Wildlife Conservation!, 36 Tests of Harm!, Badgers, Threats from Farming, Threats from Poaching and Poisoning | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

The hallowed majesty of ‘Old Growth’

Saturday, March 26th, 2011

‘General Sherman’ ~ just another sequoia? (pronounced ‘sequoya’)

Sequoia & Kings Canyon, Sierra Nevada, California, USA

^http://www.nps.gov/seki/historyculture/gfgst.htm

.

The General Sherman Tree

– the world’s largest tree, is the prime visitor attraction in the Giant Forest.

[Source: ^http://www.nps.gov/seki/historyculture/gfgst.htm]

“Sequoia sempervirens’ common names include coast redwood, California redwood, and giant redwood. It is an evergreen, long-lived, monoecious tree living 1200–1800 years or more. This species includes the (current) tallest trees on Earth, reaching up to 379 feet (115.52 m) in height and up to 26 feet (7.9 m) diameter at breast height. Before commercial logging and clearing began by the 1850s, this massive tree occurred naturally in an estimated 2.1 million acres along much of coastal California (excluding southern California where rainfall is not abundant enough) and the southwestern corner of coastal Oregon within the United States.” [Source: ^Wikipedia – read more].

“The Sierra Nevada is still growing today. The mountains gain height during earthquakes on the east side of the range. But the mountains are being shortened by erosion almost as quickly as they grow. This erosion has deposited sediments thousands of feet thick on the floor of the San Joaquin Valley.”

[Source: ^http://www.nps.gov/seki/historyculture/gfgst.htm]

‘Giant tree’ at Neerim (Gippsland, Victoria, Australia), forty feet girth c.1889

AUSTRALASIAN ART, Photo by Nicholas CAIRE, b.1837 Guernsey, United Kingdom – Australia d.1918[Gelatin silver photograph image 15.0 h x 20.2 w cm, Purchased 1983, Accession No: NGA 83.3083]

“The men shown here measuring the diameter of a giant eucalypt were not loggers or tree-lovers. They were attempting to determine whether Australian trees were bigger than the famed 400-foot giant redwoods of California. It was mostly national pride surrounding the Australian Centennial of European settlement which motivated scientists and photographers in the 1880s to seek out the remaining giant trees in the more remote areas of Victoria. The Americans claimed that their redwoods were the greatest because of their combined height and girth. In the dense Australian bush, it

was easier to measure the girth than the height and presented a much more dramatic image for a photograph.

The general public followed the giant tree debate in the papers and also purchased photographs of them and other idyllic bush scenes. By the late 19th century, the Australian population mostly lived and worked in the cities. They became day-trippers and used the new railway networks to take their recreation in the bush. Nicholas Caire, one of the most active photographers to seek out and record the giant trees, travelled over a number of years on the new rail line to Neerim town reserve.

Australia’s giant trees were widely depicted in colonial art as mighty symbols of the pre-settlement and pioneer era. Caire, whilst accepting the desirability of logging and urban development, was also one of those who argued for the preservation of examples for future generations.

Most of the awesome giant trees were felled or burnt in his lifetime. Now they are preserved only in photographs.”

~Anne O’Hehir

Indeed…

“The largest tree on Planet Earth is not the California Redwood, but the Mountain Ash (Eucalyptus regnans). The largest trees ever recorded were located in southern Australia near present day Melbourne. The world’s largest tree was the Ferguson Tree at over 500 feet (154m). It was measured by Surveyor Ferguson in 1872 in the Watts River Catchment near Healesville.”

Source: Text © National Gallery of Australia, Canberra 2010, Anne Gray (ed), Australian art in the National Gallery of Australia, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra, 2002, http://cs.nga.gov.au/Detail-LRG.cfm?IRN=106546&View=LRG

People and Horses on a Gigantic Redwood Log; about 1900.

“This photo is open for down loading for anyone wishing a free copy. Unknown Photo History. I’m fairly certain the tree was a Coast Redwood (Sequoia semperviren) or a Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) from Central to Northern California or Oregon. I wish this one was still standing. The bark has already been stripped off of it.” [Source: Photo of old photo by David Foster, http://www.flickr.com/photos/21734563@N04/2225069096/]

.

Editor’s Comment:

I empathise with David Foster. – ‘I wish this one was still standing‘. Every face in this 1900 photo conveys cultural achievement and exploitative pride.

Now in 2011, has human attitude and on-ground impact toward ‘Old Growth’ really changed any?

Consider ‘Merbau’ timber, readily available from local timber yards across Australia and in New Zealand as ‘Kwila’ (Botanical names: Intsia bijuga and Intsia palembanica). Comparable old-growth rainforest hardwoods include Narra, Yakal, and Ipil. These old growth giants continually to be currently logged illegally deep in rain forests of the Philippines, Solomon Islands, Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Australian and New Zealand households profit from SE Asian rain forest destruction.

The lost natural assets of giant trees, of old growth have diminished the Earth, and have diminished the value of humanity, and of humanity’s value to the Earth. To forest habitat we are but marauders and rapists.

Humanity has become ‘Earth’s Pathogen’.

.

SE Asia old growth Rainforest Kwila is marketed in Australia and New Zealand as ‘Merbau’

for use mainly in flooring and decking,because of its relative hardness (high Janka rating) and long term stability.

.

Rimbunan Hijau Group of Companies

“Malaysia’s largest timber group is Rimbunan Hijau (“Forever Green”) (Forbes, 1995). It has timber concessions in Sarawak of around 800,000 hectares (FT,1994), dominates Papua New Guinea’s forestry sector and has forestry interests in New Zealand and China, as well as diversifying into other activities such as the ownership of newspapers in Malaysia and Papua New Guinea (AsiaMoney, 1995). Rimbunan Hijau also owns a 40% share in Limgang Trading Sdn., which has a 310,000 hectares concession in Sarawak (55% of Limbang is owned by Sarawak’s Minister for the Environment and Tourism, James Wong Kim Min) It is privately owned and controlled by one family, headed by Tiong Hiew King. The family are estimated to be worth about US$2.5 billion (Forbes, 1995).”

“Whilst it remains largely a private group of companies, whose operations are veiled in secrecy, the Tiong family has sought to obtain a more public face through the reverse take-over of Berjaya Textiles Bhd (now renamed Jaya Tiasa Holdings Bhd), giving it a listing on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (FT 1994). Its overseas logging operations appear to remain under the control of the private parts of the group and in Papua New Guinea it is the dominant player through control of a number of associate and subsidiary companies. There are recent rumours that Rimbunan Hijau group owns, or is in the process of acquiring, Primegroup Holdings, a British Virgin Islands registered company with logging interests in Guyana and Papua New Guinea. If this is true, then Rimbunan Hijau group’s international logging interests are, or will shortly become, even more extensive, both geographically and in terms of size. Apart from its logging activities, the company has interests in banking, newspapers and oil-palm plantations. One of Hiew King’s younger brothers is a member of the Malaysian Parliament. Despite the company’s political connections, it has been caught for tax evasion, the Asian Wall Street Journal reported.”

[Source: Greenpeace, 1997, http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/forest/asian_companies_malaysia.html, accessed 20110325].

.

“Rimbunan Hijau is a Malaysian based global forest logger and controls around 60% of the forest industry in Papua New Guinea. Rimbunan Hijau is Logging vast areas of virgin PNG forest against national opinion and local customs which infringes on the traditional rights of indigenous resource owners.

(It is) accused in PNG Government reports of gross human rights abuses, labor abuses, sexual abuses and illegal logging.

Causing destruction of ancient natural forest and associated systems.

Conducting broad scale industrial logging operations that infringe on the rights of local people to establish and exploit alternative economic opportunies.

Is influencing political and other processes to gain and maintain a near monopoly on PNGs forest resources and avoid adequate scrutiny and monitoring of its operations.

Rimbunan Hijau uses the media to promote its operations to the PNG public – Rimbunan Hijau already OWNS The National newspaper and LEGAL THREATS against their only competitor, the Post Courier, have left it wary of criticising Rimbunan Hijau. These have been the only two print media outlets since The Independent was closed down.”

[Source: http://www.forestnetwork.net/rhw/]

.

Rimbunan Hijau is ultimately 50% owned by the Boral “Group” of Australia and 50% by Caltex.

[Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24211537/2258-Christchurch-New]

.

…so when Australians and New Zealanders buy Merbau timber from local timber yards, hardward stores and furniture retailers – they are driving South East Asian old growth rainforest deforestation.

.

(The following article from The Guardian in February 2011 is by forests officer for WWF Indonesia, Jimmy Bond, based in West Kalimantan on the island of Borneo)

.

Complacency over deforestation pushes orang-utan closer to extinction

“Illegal logging and hunting continues despite legal protection, so the WWF is raising awareness to help save the orang-utan.

The destruction of the world’s rainforests continues at an alarming rate. Where I’m from in Borneo, illegal logging, coupled with hunting, is driving species such as the orang-utan ever closer towards extinction.

Borneo male orang-utan Wandoo.

There are fewer than 2,000 wild orangutans left in the West Kalimantan province, Indonesia.

.

There are three subspecies of orangutan in Borneo and we only have about 2,000 orangutans left in the wild in West Kalimantan province, and through deforestation and hunting their numbers continue to fall. Just last month I heard from villagers that some people are still killing and eating them even though they’re supposed to be protected by law.

I’ve just been travelling around the region in this part of Indonesia as I’ve been running a series of summer schools as part of a WWF awareness campaign to highlight the problems facing the orang-utan.

Over the past two years, the main focus for the campaign has been children because we’ve found it very difficult to change the minds and attitudes of older generations. We invite the kids to come along to these camps from nearby villages and at the last one more than 200 kids turned up. We do many different activities from drawing to tug-of-war competitions but the over-arching aim is to touch their hearts with stories about this wonderful creature and the rainforests in which they live. We want to leave them with the understanding that these unique creatures need protecting.

We’re also starting to join forces with local government officials and religious leaders to spread the message to communities that live in traditional longhouses. We tell them about a recent success story that acts as a warning against killing orang-utans. One trader in Pontianak, where I’m based, was recently jailed for two years for trading orang-utans.

Such discussion also helps us talk about their habitats and the need to protect them too. In West Kalimantan from 1995, large-scale illegal logging cut through a forest corridor that linked two national parks where one of three subspecies of orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus) lives. This meant they couldn’t migrate between the two areas and their numbers dropped significantly. This was made worse because the illegal loggers who came here to work also hunted meat from the forests and the orang-utans were in the firing line.

Over the past few years we’ve been trying to highlight these problems to the international media because some of the illegally logged timber was transported over the border to Malaysia where it is made into wood products that are shipped all over the world. Globally, we want people to become educated about where the timber that makes their furniture comes from and the harm it is doing to species and communities. When the forest disappears people no longer have access to food and medicines plus we have also seen more flooding as a result of deforestation. The international media focus also helps push our government to react because not so long ago they were doing nothing to help.

Recently, we’ve seen companies get permits from the government to develop palm oil plantations. But what’s worse is that the permits are just a smokescreen for the companies to get at the timber and leave without planting any palm oil.

So we’re working to make indigenous communities aware of this practice and the best way to do this is by bringing in others who have seen this happen on their land to warn them. If they are forewarned then they know not to allow it to happen to their own communities. These people need to have the forest in good condition because it’s not only home to different species, it’s also where they earn their livelihood.

Looking to the future, my big ambition is to set up an orang-utan rehabilitation centre here in West Kalimantan for subspecies Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus. At the moment, orphaned babies are taken to other parts of the country where they are kept with the two other subspecies. I want them to be able to breed with their own kind otherwise they could die out. And I fear that if the orangutan disappears, the rainforest won’t last much longer either.”

[Source: The Guardian newspaper (UK) , http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/03/indonesia-deforestation-orangutan-extinction, accessed Feb 2011]

.

Tags: Boral Group, Californian redwood, Caltex, commercial logging, deforestation, Earth's Pathogen, Eucalyptus regnans, Ferguson Tree, General Sherman Sequoia, Giant Forest, giant redwood, Guam, hallowed majesty, human pathogen, illegal logging, Intsia bijuga, Janka rating, Kalimantan, Kwila, Merbau, merbau flooring, Merbau's last stand, Narra, Neerim, old growth conservation, old growth forest, orang-utan, orang-utan extinction, Oregon, Primegroup Holdings, Rainforest Kwila, Rimbunan Hijau, San Joaquin Valley, Sarawak, Sequoia sempervirens, Sequoiadendron giganteum, Sierra Nevada, significant trees, world's largets tree, Yakal
Posted in 31 Old Growth Conservation!, Congo (CD), Kalimantan (ID), Sumatra (ID), Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Bushfire Reform 03: A ‘Civil Emergency Corps’

Saturday, March 19th, 2011

Rural Fire Management Reform Series

Recommended Reform Initiative #03:

.

Formation of a ‘Civil Emergency Corps’

.

Australia’s Wedged-tailed Eagle (Aquila audax)

– an ideal mascot for a Civil Emergency Corps

Source: Trevor’s Birding website: ^http://www.trevorsbirding.com/

.

1. Purpose of this Reform Initiative

As one solution to Australia’s failing governance to mitigate and tackle national disasters (bushfires, storms, floods, drought, earthquakes,etc) I propose the complete overhaul of Australia’s current state-based disparate system. This reform initiative proposes to transform and consolidate the many state-based bushfire and emergency services across Australia and Emergency Management Australia into one standardised national professional body. I propose a new national defence corps be established under new national legislation. The proposed name of that body is to be Australia’s ‘Civil Emergency Corps‘.

The purpose of a ‘Civil Emergency Corps‘ shall be to reach beyond rural fire fighting and to encompass the breadth of all civil emergency fields non-military in nature. The ‘Civil Emergency Corps‘ is to be Australia’s primary and sole central organisation to deal with civil emergencies including national disasters, natural or otherwise. It is to supercede and make redundant the current Emergency Management Australia – which merely co-ordinates state government responses to major civil defence emergencies “when State and Territory resources are inappropriate, exhausted or unavailable.” – [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emergency_Management_Australia&oldid=32590701]

The ‘Civil Emergency Corps‘ is to become a fourth arm of Australia’s defence forces along with and having the equivalent status and ‘defence power’ as the Army, Navy and Air Force, yet be purely non-combative. The ‘Civil Emergency Corps‘ will be an equal partner with our Army, Navy and Air Force, but instead of focusing on national defence against human-based threats, the Civil Emergency Corps will focus on national defence against mainly natural threats.

Under Section 51(vi) of the 1901 Australian Constitution, the clause dealing with ‘‘defence power‘ gives the Commonwealth Parliament the right to legislate with respect to “the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth“. Just as ‘defence power‘ has allowed the Commonwealth to raise an army and navy, the term was considered broad enough to add the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) as a defence power in 1921. Similarly, it is argued that a new ‘Civil Emergency Corps‘ charged with civil defence and natural disaster emergencies fits within the Constitutional definition of ‘defence power‘.

A special national commission should be established by the Australian Government to review and shape the purpose, functional scope, framework, organisation structure and strategies of this new corps. The initial intent is that this Civil Emergency Corps is to be modelled along the lines of the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Federal National Response Framework (NRF), but tailored to Australia’s specific needs and circumstances and that of the Oceanic region. The design of the organisation will be based on input received from current emergency personnel, emergency experts and from the broader Australian community. Ideas from comparable organisations overseas will also be considered, such as from nations having proven effective national civil defence organisations.

Funding is to be on par, have the same budget process as, the Australian Regular Army. The days of reliance on meat trays, raffles, grants and community fund raising must end. The task is too important for petty funding. Instead, the organisation is to be professionally paid, run in a military structure and to military discipline and precision. Australians in time of need deserve no less. Like the Army it will have core full-time regulars, augmented with a part-time reserve component. It will be initially staffed by the current people already performing emergency service work. Initially the existing infrastructure (buildings, plant and equipment) shall be utilised. Over time the organisation will evolve to coming up to par with the equivalent performance standards as the Army. Its resourcing will be exponentially increased to equip it to properly anticipate, monitor, and respond to any non-military emergency.
.

Essential Functions of the Civil Emergency Corps

To assume all the work of the State Emergency Services, Fire Services and Rescue Agencies
Disaster risk, contingency and mitigation planning – land and maritime
Natural Disaster Response – fire, explosion, contamination, flood, drought, storm, sea surge, earthquake, biological/nuclear emergency, etc
Disaster Relief
Disaster Recovery
HAZMAT Response
Disaster Management Training
Community Education in Natural Disaster Preparation and Mitigation

.

2. Recommended Policy

To transform and consolidate the many state-based bushfire and emergency services across Australia and Emergency Management Australia into one standardised federal professional body – Australia’s ‘Civil Emergency Corps‘. The ‘Civil Emergency Corps‘ is to be Australia’s primary and sole central organisation to deal with civil emergencies including national disasters, natural or otherwise.

A special national commission to be established by the Australian Government to review and shape the purpose, functional scope, framework, organisation structure and strategies of this new corps. The initial intent is that this Civil Emergency Corps is to be modelled along the lines of the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Federal National Response Framework (NRF), but tailored to Australia’s specific needs and circumstances. The design of the organisation will be based on input received from current emergency personnel, emergency experts and from the broader Australian community. Ideas from comparable organisations overseas will also be considered, such as from nations having proven effective national civil defence organisations.

This is not an exercise in administrative consolidation. It is a transformation of a disparate, outmoded and under resourced emergency infrastructure into a single centrally co-ordinated non-combat national defence organisation. It is to be a continually learning organisation learning from past mistakes, such as the failings of the management of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires. It is not to be a traditional hierarchical structure, but a programme-based matrix organisation, requiring exceptional leadership skills of its executive.

.

3. Recommended Formation and Structure

.
Incorporated into Australia’s Defence Context

Australian Regular Army / Army Reserve
Royal Australian Navy / Navy Reserve
Royal Australian Air Force / Air Force Reserve
Civil Emergency Corps / Civil Emergency Reserve

.

Civil Emergency Corp Structure

In the same way as Australia’s three other corps are configured, the new Civil Emergency Corps is to be comprised of ‘Regulars’ – full-time and professionally paid, as well as ‘Reservists’ who commit on a part-time and on demand basis, who are no-less professionally trained and paid commensurate with time served.

The organisational structure is to be headquartered in Canberra, located strategically next to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, as well has being networked geographically with a ‘State Corps’ for each State and Territory.

Regionally, this new organisation will have ‘Regional Brigades’ and at the local level ‘Local Units’. Each component will have its share of regulars and reservists. The existing infrastructure of the various emergency services agencies would be utilised.

In addition, in order to deal with highly specialised functions, dedicated Corp Specialist Regiments will be established (see proposed list below).

1. National Government Ministry

Minister for Civil Emergency

Deputy Minister for Civil Emergency

Parliamentary Secretary for Civil Emergency

A ‘National Command Centre’ – based in Canberra next to the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), for strategic reasons, headed by a ‘Corps General Marshall

2. State and Territory Corps

Each headed by a ‘Corps Brigadier‘
The organisational structure is to based on a hybrid geographical model of both Fire Brigades and State Emergency Service, decided on a region by region assessment.

3. Regional Brigades

each headed by a ‘Regional Commander‘

4. Local Units

each headed by a ‘Unit Captain‘

The regionalisation of the Civil Emergency Corps is to adopt the similar geographic structure aligned to a hybrid of that of the pre-existing State Emergency Services and Rural Fire Services.

For instance, currently across New South Wales State Emergency Service (SES), NSW is divided into 17 ‘Regions’ based on major river systems.

‘Each of the 226 volunteer units belongs to a Region, which is led by a Region Controller. Region boundaries coincide as nearly as possible with major river systems. Each Region Controller is responsible for the operational control of emergency flood and storm responses, including planning, training, operational support and other functions within their area of control. The Region Headquarters also provides administrative support to the units in its region. The Region Headquarters all have fully functioning Operations Centres and a group of volunteers who help with training, planning, operational and other functions.’
.

[Source: http://www.ses.nsw.gov.au/about/ ]

.

Merger and Integration:

All pre-existing emergency service organisations, with the exception of the ambulance and police services, are to be disbanded and merged and integrated into one national body, the Civil Emergency Corps.

The reason to maintain independence of the police services is due to the police function and role being more closely aligned to law and order than to dealing with civil emergencies. The reason to maintain independence of the ambulance service is due to the ambulance function and role being more closely aligned to hospital and medicare care than to dealing with civil emergencies.

Nationally:

•   Emergency Management Australia
•   Care Flight Group
•   Australian Volunteer Coast Guard
•   St John Ambulance Service
.
.

NSW Corps:

A merger and integration of the Fire and Rescue NSW, NSW Rural Fire Service, and Community Emergency Services Incorporated.
.

Victorian Corps

A merger and integration of the Victorian Fire Brigade, Country Fire Authority and the State Emergency Service.
.

Queensland Corps

A merger and integration of the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, Queensland State Emergency Service and the Queensland Rural Fire Service.
.

South Australian Corps

A merger and integration of the South Australian Metroplitan Fire Service, Country Fire Service, and the State Emergency Service.
.

ACT Corps

A merger and integration of the ACT Fire Brigade, ACT State Emergency Service and the ACT Rural Fire Service.
.

West Australian Corps

A merger and integration of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia (which has already merged its emergency service agencies).
.

North Australia Corps

A merger and integration of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service, Northern Territory Emergency Service, Bushfire Volunteer Brigades, Rescue Co-ordination Centre (Northern Territory Transport Group).
.

Tasmanian Corps

A merger and integration of the Tasmanian Fire Service, and the State Emergency Service Tasmania.
.

.

Corps Specialist Regiments

.

• Specialist Regiments shall be established, each having its own part-time payrolled Reserve component.
.

‘Evacuation Regiment’

•   emergency field transport and logistics to effect evacuation of displaced persons and their personal effects
•   assumes basic human needs provision of displaced persons (emergency accommodation, food and clothing, emergency sanitation, emergency childcare
•   currently performed by charity groups like The Salvation Army, The Australian Red Cross, St Vincent de Paul Society, Anglicare Australia, Mission Australia, Catholic Mission, and others
.

‘Utilities Regiment’

• public utility repair and rebuilding – drinking water, sewage and sanitation, electricity, gas services
.

‘Reconstruction Regiment’

• debris clearance, demolition, salvage, engineering, construction, civil infrastructure, and relief housing, farm fencing repairs.
.

‘Communications Regiment’

• Corps internal communications including satellite management for monitoring of bushfires and storms, (attached to Army Signals), land phone, mobile/SMS, public broadcast services, internet services, including evacuee/missing persons database and related communications, plus public relations communications
.

‘Search and Rescue Regiment’

• assumes land search and rescue functions previously performed by various State Police special units, as well as rescue of trapped people from earthquakes, mines, landslides, etc.

‘Airborne Regiment’

• Equipped with its own fleet of aircraft and special purpose airfields, this regiment will be regionally based and assume all avaition services including helicopter rescue, fire bombing, airborne evacuation transport, air search and rescue, and air-ambulance. It will integrate the various pre-existing airborne emergency services of each state,namely the NSW Police Rescue Unit, Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service (NSW), CareFlight Group, Search and Rescue Squad (of the Victorian Police), Tasmanian Air Rescue Trust, RACQ CareFlight, Capricorn Helicopter Rescue Service (Rockhampton), Royal Flying Doctor Service.

‘Maritime Regiment’

• assumes functions previously performed by Coast Guard, including sea search and rescue and vessel salvage functions. It will integrate the various pre-existing maritime emergency services of each state, namely Marine Rescue NSW, Volunteer Marine Rescue (Qld), the South Australian Sea Rescue Squadron, the Volunteer Marine Rescue Western Australia, and Sea Rescue Tasmanian Inc.
.

‘Medivac Regiment’

• The risk in times of civil emergency, is that already busy ambulance services become overstretched in being expected to provide the extraordinary levels of emergency medical needs of affected people and communities. This is unacceptable. Not a replacement of the State-based Ambulance Services, The Medivac Regiment will be dedicated to functions currently otherwise performed in times of disaster by State-based Ambulance Services, Royal Flying Doctor Service, Army Medics, St John Ambulance and paramedics, and emergency field medicine. In addition it will provide medical emergency evacuation, hospital transfers, and specialise in proactive disease prevention, containment and vaccinations at times of pandemic and epidemic emergencies.

‘Community Regiment’

• provides the full range of trauma counselling, psychological and associated mental health services, which will typically extend many months and sometimes years after exposure to a disasterous event
.

‘Vet Regiment’

• Specialised livestock and pet recovery, animal sheltering, emergency veterinary services, emergency relief livestock agistment, stock feed provision and distribution
.

‘Biosecurity Regiment’

• All biosecurity emergency planning and response to disease outbreaks, pandemics, epidemics, pestilence, plague, national health threats or emergencies, including mass casualty events, communicable disease outbreaks, and quarantine emergency planning and response.
.
.

Civil Emergency Strategic Partners

Australian Regular Army – Engineers, Signals (Communications), Transport & Logistics
Royal Australian Navy
Royal Australian Air Force
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Government Department of Health and Aging ‚Health Emergency
Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation
State and Federal Governments ‚ Premiers Departments
New Zealand Government ‚ Ministry of Civil Defenc and Emergency Management CentreLink
CSIRO
Bushfire CRC
Seismology Research Centre, Australia
Geoscience Australia
Australian Broadcasting Commission
Department of Community Services (and State equivalents)
Major Supermarket Retailers – Coles, Woolworths, Metcash
Shipping Container company
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Satellite Service Provider – Australian Satellite Communications Pty Ltd,
Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL)
Australian Antarctic Division
Telstra
Qantas
Brambles Shipping
The Salvation Army
The Australian Red Cross
Infrastructure Australia
State Ambulance Services
State Police Services
State Health Agencies
Metcash, Coles, Woolworths
LinFox, Toll Holdings,
Departments of Community Services
CentreLink
Australia Post
State Morgues and Funeral Directors
Business Council of Australia
Small Business Council of Australia
Insurance Council of Australia
and many others.

.

Funding

The funding for such an organization needs to continually be drawn from multiple sources as it does now so as to share the burden, but the revenue needs to be ramped up and applied on a more ‘user-pays’ but means-tested calculation basis, including

Council rates component (indexed according to one’s properties bushfire zoning and house preparedness to mitigate bushfire damage – not how much natural vegetation one may have cleared around one’s property)
State taxes (existing, but with a portion of property stamp duty revenue allocated to this funding)
Federal taxes (existing) and Australia’s annual Defence Budget reined in away from wasteful capital expenditure on extravagant projects like the Joint Strike Fighter towards funding the more pertinent need of civil emergency funding
Property insurance premiums increased (indexed according to one’s properties bushfire zoning and house preparedness to mitigate bushfire damage – not how much natural vegetation one may have cleared around one’s property)
A blanket tax on exotic plants – eg 10% and legislation banning sales of gazetted noxious species with associated fines eg $2000
New legislation to effect a new bushfire levy imposed on property development applications eg 5% of the estimated construction value
New legislation to effect a parental financial liability for children found to have caused bushfire damage – fines mean tested up to $100,000
New legislation to given power to the EPA and local councils to fine people and organizations for illegal damage to native vegetation. The same satellite monitoring system as that used to detect ignitions would be admissible evidence. Fines mean tested up to $100,000

Can Australia afford this?

Well can Australia afford not to? Wait until the next disaster and then ask the question again, and again.

When Australians observe the hundreds of millions of dollars (indeed billions) of taxpayer moneys spent by State and Federal Governments in wasteful projects, the answer is a simple yes, easily. Question the opportunity cost of the following recent examples of government inappropriate spending and waste:

Nov 2010: Prime Minister Gillard donates $500 million to Indonesian Islamic Schools
Jul 2010: A Senate inquiry into the Rudd-Gillard Government‚Äôs botched $300 million Green Loans program has confirmed that some groups of assessors hired as part of the program are still owed over $500,000 in fees due to mismanagement and poor administration procedures under the scheme with some assessors blasting the Federal Government for failing to implement proper checks and balances.
Mar 2010: The Rudd Government has recorded an $850 million blow-out in the cost of its household solar power program. Labor had only intended to spend $150 million over five years on solar rebates but instead splurged $1 billion in just 18 months!
Dec 2010: Queensland Premier Bligh committed $1.2 billion into the Tugun Desalination Plant, which has been plagued by problems since it opened last year, will be shut early next year, along with half the $380 million Bundamba treatment plant and the new $313 million plant at Gibson Island. Water infrastructure has cost Queenslanders $9 billion recently and they are entitled to know the money is being spent wisely.
Dec 2010: Queensland Premier Anna Bligh shelved a $192 million project involving carbon capture research. Bligh has said she is determined to make carbon capture storage economically viable and has committed another $50 million of taxpayers money to finding the answer. The Bligh government has already spent $102 million researching cleaner coal technology through the state-owned ZeroGen, a joint state-commonwealth government and industry led-research project for coal-fired power production.
Sep 2010: Victorian Premier Brumby’s Wonthaggi desalination plant will cost Victorians $15.8 billion over the next three decades, departmental figures show, leading the state opposition to accuse the government of hiding the project’s true cost.
And disaster management it is better invested up front in prevention and response, than afterward in relief and recovery.

Yes, Australia can afford it. Governments need to stop wasting taxpayer money.

.

4. Justifications for this Reform Initiative

.

Since European colonisation of Australia in 1788, successive natural and unnatural disasters have occurred, yet government preparedness and response has repeatedly fallen well short of the duty and standard expected by the Australian public. The 1939 Black Friday bushfires were perhaps the greatest wake up call to complacent governments, yet since then countless bushfires, storms, floods and other civil emergencies have seen government well behind the eight ball to cope and to exercise its civil responsibility to protect the Australian public. While in 1939, emergency management knowledge, resources, technology and techniques were primitive, in 2011 now, there is no excuse. In bushfires, storms and floods people are continuing to die, houses destroyed and vast areas of natural habitat destroyed. Only myopic denial and lack of political prevent Australian governments at all levels from fulfilling their civic governance responsibilities in civic emergency contingency resourcing and management. It is no longer tolerated for governments to hide behind the veneer of the volunteer involvement to deflect public critisism of the government neglect of civil emergency management. Australia has a litany of disasters through its recent history:
- March 1899: more than 400 die in Cyclone Martha at Cape York, far north Queensland.
- December 1916: Flood kills 61 at Clermont, Queensland
- April 1929: Northern Tasmanian floods kill 44
- December 1934: Melbourne floods kill 36 and leave 3000 homeless
- March 1935: Cyclone in Broome, West Australia kills 141
- February 1955: Hunter Valley floods kills 25 in Singleton and Maitland, NSW
- February 1967: Tasmanian bushfires kill 62, most in Hobart
- January 1974: Brisbane floods kill 14 (Cyclone Tracy 25,000 made homeless)
- December 1989: Earthquake in Newcastle, NSW kills 13
- July 1997: Landslide at Thredbo, NSW kills 18
- February 2009: Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria kill 173
- and many others.
[Source: The Australian newspaper, ‘Summer, season of catastrophe‘, 20110112, p.11]
Current emergency management across Australia remains grossly under-resourced, ill-equipped and typically wholly reliant upon unpaid volunteers and individual community members dong their bit. It is government negligence to the extreme.
The cost of maintaining the status quo of relying upon multiple State-based agencies continues to be in the hundreds of millions dealing with major bushfires each year. Bushfires don’t stop at State borders and invariably each summer, crews cross borders anyway to help out. Each State simply doesn’t have the resources to do an effective job when it comes to major bushfire events, or indeed major natural disasters. So the task become national anyway.
During the cooler winter months, when there a few if any bushfires, those agencies tasked in bushfire management are in the main idle, while at the same time the State Emergency Services are often overwhelmed dealing with storm emergencies. By combining all emergency services (excluding police and ambulance services) into one national body, the combined force will be better trained and resourced to tackle any form of civil emergency any time of year. The resources will be more continuously employed, have greater capacity and be at a greater state of readiness to deal with civil emergencies.
Australian governments at all levels need to stop their ‘too-little-too-late’ reactionary responses to emergency management in Australia . The Australian people, the Australian economy and the Australian natural environment deserve better. Currently, we have disparate grossly underfunded State run groups largely staffed by local volunteers – volunteer rural fire services, volunteer state emergency services, and total dependence upon various charities like the Red Cross and Salvation Army. The responsibility for emergency management throughout Australia has been run on the cheap by successive State and Federal governments since Black Friday of 1939. National Disaster Management is probably the most neglected responsibility of all government services, because to do it right involves long term planning beyond election cycles and costs so much money.
Nationally, Australia has no central organisation that deals with national disasters, natural or otherwise. The job is left to the relevant State Government concerned; somewhat a leftover remnant of colonialism. There is a token agency under the Federal Attorney General’s Department, called Emergency Management Australia, but the name is more impressive than the tasks it performs. In 2005 under the Howard Government, Emergency Management Australia was on paper “tasked with co-ordinating governmental responses to emergency incidents” and with providing training [at Mount Macedon] and policy development, yet “the actual provision of most emergency response in Australia (was)… delivered by State Governments.” [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emergency_Management_Australia&oldid=32590701]. In November 2007 under the Rudd Government, the Emergency Management Australia focus was modified, slightly: “On request, the Australian Government will provide and coordinate physical assistance to the States in the event of a major natural, technological or civil defence emergency. Such physical assistance will be provided when State and Territory resources are inappropriate, exhausted or unavailable.” – and they gave it an acronym ‘COMDISPLAN’ standing for Commonwealth Government Disaster Response Plan. [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emergency_Management_Australia&oldid=174306765 ] That is, in lay terms, the Australian Government will only help in national emergencies when the States can’t handle a public emergency.
Such a bureaucratic attitude is hardly proactive leadership from our wealthy developed nation!
Emergency Management in Australia doesn’t even have a dedicated minister responsible. Instead, the entire responsibility is tagged on to the Federal Attorney General’s Department. Currently the task is being delegated to an ‘Acting’ Attorney-General Brendan O’Connor and shared with Minister for Human Services Tanya Plibersek. It is as if the Australian Government has a head in the sand approach to national emergencies at home, hoping they won’t happen, but when they do, she’ll be right mate! – we’ll fob our way through it as best we can with what’s lying around. What a bloody irresponsible approach to national emergency management! And all the government does is to encourage the thousands of Queensland residents affected by the flooding to lodge a claim for the Australian Government‚ Disaster Recovery Payment ‘AGDRP’ – another acronym!
The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) met in Brisbane on 7 December 2009 and agreed to a range of measures to improve Australia’s natural disaster arrangements. COAG recognised “the expected increase to the regularity and severity of natural disasters”, and so agreed to a new whole-of-nation ‚resilience based approach to natural disaster policy and programs.” Under a Natural Disaster Resilience Program, at Federal level we now have Commonwealth funding for disaster mitigation works and support for emergency management will be approximately $110 million over four years. That funding would deliver more effective benefits by being channelled to single national body, rather than spread across multiple duplicated agencies.
The responsibility for proper governance of civil disaster management (contingency planning, mitigation, resourcing and response) by Australian governments span not just within Australia’s shores but as a wealthy nation and an international citizen, Australia owes a duty of care to countries in its region. Last September, Australia’s closest neighbour, New Zealand, suffered a devastating earthquake in Christchurch, and we don’t have to travel far back to recall the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami that devastated coastal Sumatra, Thailand, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Currently, Australia is responding with emergency management personnel, equipment and funding to the Japanese Government following the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear plant emergencies. That response would be all the more effective, co-ordinated and resourced if under professional umbrella Civil Emergency Corps.

.

5. Benefits of this Reform Initiative

.

Only with a national, military style and fully funded organisation, can Australia expect to adequately prepare, resource and deal with national civil emergencies. The current State-based volunteer-dependent system does not have a hope of getting access to real-time satellite monitoring of the nation for ignitions, tsunamis, storms and the like, nor access to standby airborne fleet to effect military speed responses. Instead, the current system relies on an outmoded and slow truck-centric ‘mum-and-dad’ army whom, while well-intentionedand dedicated, are grossly inadequate to meet the scale of the challenge.
The increased prevalence of climate change is expected to increase the frequency and severity of natural disasters in our region, yet Australia’s readiness continues to lag decades behind the requisite emergency management need. Only a complete transformation of Australia’s emergency management to a military-speed national defence force has a chance of adequately preparing Australia for inevitable future natural disasers and civil emergencies.
Collectively across all the existing emergency organisations, Australia already spends billions in emergency management, but is not coping and is under-performing against 21st century triple bottom line expectations
Cumulatively, Australia already spends billions in emergency management, but most of the cost is in response due to being under-prepared. In natural disaster management, mitigation and prevention where possible are better than the cost of poor response. It is cheaper economically and on lives.
A professional organisation, on the payroll is fairer to the workers involved. Government reliance on community volunteers is exploitative and the standards can never collectively match full paid professionals with state of the art resourcing. Taxes are paid by the people so that government will protect them in both military and civil defence.
A single national Corps is better positioned than multiple disjointed organisations to prepare for and respond to the ever increasing array of national disasters, but such an organisation would retain the critical advantage of regional and local personnel and resources. Economies of scale and efficiency gains from removing duplication in administration and overheads would come from a single Corps. But a key condition must be that any job losses would attract full retrenchment payouts.
Many secondary school leavers could be readily recruited into a non-combative Civil Emergency Corps service for limited services, than are attracted to the traditional three combative military corps.
Amalgamating the many disparate organisations into one will enable national standardisation of policies, procedures and techniques as well as enable best practice in effectiveness and efficiency.
By having a national, multi-skilled, professionally trained and properly resourced Civil Emergency Corps, Australia will be better placed to assist and respond to natural disasters across Australia and throughout the Oceanic region.

.

Proposed mascot of Australia’s overdue ‘Civil Emergency Corps’ :

Australia‘s Wedge-Tailed Eagle

Source: ^ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wedge_tailed_eagle_in_flight04.jpg

Australia’s magnificent wedge-tailed eagle should be the mascot of this new organisation. It is uniquely Australian, a highly respected native bird and the eagle traditionally is a symbol for guardianship, protection, power, strength, courage, wisdom and grace. All these qualities quite apt for a Civil Emergency Corps. An appropriate motto is ‘defending our community’ – or perhaps ‘vigilant, capable, immediate‘ but instead of in English or translated back to Latin, more appropriate that it be in an Australian Aboriginal language.

[Footnote: This article has been prepared based upon material in a previous article on this website published 1st January 2011 entitled ‘National Disasters Best for Capable Army‘].

The Habitat Advocate

Archive for the ‘Habitat Advocacy’ Category

Australia’s conservation record sux

‘Ecological Burning’ – a myth, an ‘eco-crime’

.

.

.

From the frying pan…

‘Ecological Burn’ Theory

.

‘Go forth and burn wilderness. It’ll grow back. It’ll do it good.‘

.

.

Habitat ‘fuel’ gone…so it wont burn now!

.

..

.

.

.

Likely Origins of the ‘Ecological Burn’ myth

.

‘A Firelighters’ Bliss‘:.

.

A Test for ‘Fire Ecologists’:

.

…Flora and Fauna Inventory:

.

.

.

.

References

.

.

.

No natural predators except humans

.

.

.

Habitat

.

.

Threats

.

.

‘The last recorded native white-tailed eagle in Britain was a rare albino (all-white) eagle that was shot in Shetland in 1917.’

.

.

Sea eagles given more protection

.

.

.

...

.

.

The Golden Eagle

.

.

.

ALMA is dead – POISONED – 30th July 2009

.

.

Further Reading:

.

.

Native badgers’ existence rights

.

…Native badgers are under threat across the United Kingdom from misguided State-sanctioned poaching.

.

“People come–they stay for a while, they flourish, they build–and they go.

It is their way.

But we remain.

There were badgers here, I’ve been told, long before that same city ever came to be.

And now there are badgers here again.

We are an enduring lot, and we may move out for a time, but we wait, and are patient, and back we come.

And so it will ever be.“

.

The Badger – a native to Britain

.

.

.