Dead fox found near Braeside Track, Blackheath, Blue Mountains in 2006
There was no sign of it being shot. Was it baited?
(Photo by Editor, 20060722, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)
.
In June 2012, Gerry from Hazelbrook in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney wrote in the local Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper:
“Our place backs on to bushland. The other morning I was looking out the kitchen window and I saw two foxes just beyond our back fence, ambling along, very relaxed, looking like they owned the place. They were large, and looking extremely well fed.
A few days earlier I had seen a very large feral cat stalking prey in the same area.
Question: whose brief is feral animal control in the Blue Mountains, and what to they actually do about the problem?”
[Source: ‘Who is responsible?’, (letter to the editor), by Gerry Binder, Hazelbrook, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20120627, p.4]
.
Well, no one from the authorities responded to Gerry in the newspaper.
So who is responsible for fox control across the Blue Mountains? One would be inclined to consider the local Blue Mountains Council, or the regional National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) if the fox is in the National Park.
A phone call to Blue Mountains Council today revealed that the Council does not get involved in feral animal control. It has no policy or strategy to deal with the fox problem, or indeed with feral predation in the Blue Mountains local government area (LGA).
This area comprises two east-west human-settled corridors through the central region of the Blue Mountains: (1) along the Great Western Highway (including Hazelbrook) and (2) along the Bells Line of Road. Both corridors are surrounded and upstream of the UNESCO-listed Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
According to the Blue Mountains Council, feral animal control across the Blue Mountains, outside the World Heritage Area, is handled by the New South Wales Government Department, the Livestock Health and Pest Authority. So to answer Gerry’s question above, if anyone has an issue with foxes outside the World Heritage Area, don’t contact Blue Mountains Council, but instead contact the the Livestock Health and Pest Authority (LHPA).
The LHPA has geographically divided the Blue Mountains region into two serviced districts. From Bullaburra east back toward Sydney, the Cumberland Livestock Health and Pest Authority based at Camden takes an interest (Tel: 02-6331 1377). From Wentworth Falls west to Bathurst, the Bathurst Livestock Health and Pest Authority based at Bathurst takes an interest (Tel: 02-4655 9165).
The Livestock Health and Pest Authority (LHPA) is primarily tasked with safeguarding agriculture from threats – such as feral predation, insect control, livestock disease prevention and health. It has sixty offices across NSW and works with rural producers, government and industry to safeguard agriculture in NSW. The LHPA operates under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 (NSW) and is ultimately accountable to the NSW Minister for Primary Industries.
Strangely enough, the LHPA has NOT listed foxes as ‘declared pests’ in NSW. It does list wild rabbits, wild dogs, feral pigs and locusts as declared pests. The reason is one of jurisdiction and legal delegation. The LHPA is primarily charged with safeguarding agriculture, not safeguarding native habitat and fauna. It classes foxes and mice merely as ‘nuisance animals’ throughout New South Wales and states that there is no legal obligation for a landholder in NSW to control foxes or mice. LHPA only provides control advice and assistance to rural property owners. So in relation to fox control, the LHPA is more token and lip service. Blue Mountains Council adopts a complete cop out approach to the fox problem across the Blue Mountains.
From its brochure on foxes, the control methods LHPA adopts for fox control are:
1080 poison (sodium monofluoroacetate) – a cruel and indiscriminate poison, that kills slowly (carnivores up to 21 hours) causes pain, suffering, trembling, convulsion and vomiting. It is banned in most countries because it is considered inhumane, but still used across Australia. [Read More: ^http://www.wlpa.org/1080_poison.htm]
Rubber jawed leg hold traps
Mesh cage traps, which seem the most humane option.
A week after Gerry’s letter, on the front page of the Blue Mountains Gazette ran the story of a Burns Road resident in nearby Springwood discovering that his cat Sam had been caught in a wild dog trap. Sam’s legs had been broken by the trap and he was euthanised as a result. The article in the paper stated that the Blue Mountains Council and National Parks and Wildlife Service were jointly undertaking a trapping programme in the Blaxland to Springwood area after receiving complaints about wild dogs. Traps has been set along a fire trail to catch the wild dogs. [Source: ‘Sad end for Sam’, by Damien Madigan, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20120704, p.1]
Rubber Jaw Leg-Hold Trap
.
That the cat was roaming in the bushland down a fire trail, suggests that it may well have been preying on wildlife as well. What is the difference in wildlife impact between that of a targeted wild dog, and a companion cat that is roaming wild in bushland? That the trap broke the cat’s legs meant that the control method was not humane. It also means that trapping, like poisoning is an indiscriminate form of feral animal control. So herein lies a challenge of feral predator control.
Native Dingo caught in a rubber jaw leg-hold trapIt confirms that trapping is indiscriminate
.
In May 2011, Paul from Winmalee in the Blue Mountains, with his stated background in wildlife conservation, wrote in his letter in the Blue Mountains Gazette that shooting feral animals as a conservation measure is a largely inefficient way to control foxes. “The National Parks and Wildlife Service has done studies showing that shooting/hunting feral animals has minimal affect (sic) on their numbers”, he said. [Source: ‘Not conservation’ (letter to the editor), by Paul Bailey, Winmalee, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20110511, p.8]
.
Recreational shooting of feral animals can attract the wrong mentality
.
Back in July 2011, a local Blue Mountains resident, ‘Don’, asked in his email to The Habitat Advocate “would you like to give some coverage to the lack of ongoing fox control around Katoomba?” Don clarified in his email:
“Quite a good effort was made about 3-4 years ago (2007-08) and for about 18 months afterwards there was no sign of foxes but, as happens all too often with the bureaucratic model of pest animal control, there was no ongoing effort and foxes are now back in serious numbers, as can be detected by direct sightings, tracks and scats.
We have noticed huge losses amongst wood duck especially (the ducklings are very vulnerable to fox predation) and the swamp wallaby population is no-where near what it should be. In fact, observable wallaby numbers are down on what they were ten or fifteen years ago.
The cost of control programmes is obviously an issue. Unfortunately, due to the parasitisation of the environmental movement by animal rights folk, self-sustaining control measures such as the commercial exploitation of foxes for their skins is no longer pursued. If that remains the case, can we realistically expect the politicians ever to find the money for ongoing effective fox control, given the competing environmental considerations, not to mention budgetary issues such as mental health, which is sorely languishing?”
Feral Foxes are healthy across the Blue Mountains
.
Don’s request happened to be our very first request for onground action and so we shall stay by Don and see that his very legitimate request is pursued.
Our understanding is that across the Blue Mountains region, there are three categories of land ownership/control which would be impacted by fox predation:
The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area
Council lands spread across 8 multiple Local Government Areas (LGAs) of:
Blue Mountains
Lithgow
Oberon
Wollondilly
Hawkesbury
Muswellbrook
Singleton
Mid-Western Regional (Mudgee)
Private land including urban, rural, farms and to a small extent, mining leasehold land
Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area
(Source: New South Wales then Department of Environment and Climate Change, 2007)
(Click image to enlarge)
.
The custodial responsibility for managing the natural values of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area is the Australian Government. The area totals roughly 10,000 square kilometres (1.03 million hectares) of sandstone plateaux, escarpments and gorges dominated by temperate eucalypt forest. It comprises eight protected areas:
Blue Mountains National Park
Kanangra-Boyd National Park
Wollemi National Park
Gardens of Stone National Park
Yengo National Park
Nattai National Park
Thirlmere Lakes National Park
Jenolan Caves Karst Conservation Reserve
‘Blue Mountains World Heritage Area’
Listed by UNESCO in 2000 for its unique and significant natural values
(Photo by the Rural Fire Service)
.
Fauna of the Blue Mountains region classified as ‘threatened with extinction’ or ‘rare’ include the Tiger Quoll, the Koala, the Yellow-bellied Glider, the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby and the Long-nosed Potoroo as well as rare reptiles and endangered amphibians such as the Green and Golden Bell Frog, the Blue Mountain Water Skink and the Broad-headed Snake and endangered birds like the Regent Honeyeater. The largest predator of the region is the Australian Dingo to which its natural prey in the region is the Grey Kangaroo and various subspecies of Wallaby, other macropods, small marsupials and reptiles.
Tiger Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus)
Also known as the spotted-tail quoll (which we consider a rather naff politically correct name)
An endangered carnivore, native to the Blue Mountains and competing with the Dingo and feral fox as the top order predator of the region
(Photo by OzTrek)
.
The feral fox, being carnivorous, poses two types of threats to wildlife across the Blue Mountains region. It preys on small ground dwelling animals and reptiles. It also competes for prey with the Tiger Quoll and Dingo.
.
Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area – significant natural values
.
The Australian Government has outsourced and delegated its custodial responsibility for managing the natural values of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area to the New South Wales State Government, which has in turn delegated the responsibility to one of its departments, the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS).
At the time of writing, the NSW NPWS, is part of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), within the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet. One has to check every four years or so, because the department changes its name that frequently. This is the current website, but that could change too: ^http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/about
The regional office of the NSW NPWS is located in Katoomba in the Blue Mountains.
Conservation management of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, including feral animal control, is guided by a number of documents. Pertinent to the fox predation threat, the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area listing includes World Heritage natural values worth conserving and protecting under World Heritage Natural Criterion 44 (a)(iv):
“…contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation…”
Pertinent to fox predation threat, The Blue Mountains World Heritage Area meets World Heritage Natural Criterion 44 (a)(iv) by it including significant habitats for in situ conservation of biological diversity, taxa of conservation significance, exceptional diversity of habitats providing outstanding representation of the Australian fauna within a single place. These include endemic species, relict species, species with a restricted range, and rare or threatened species (40 vertebrate taxa – including 12 mammal species) and examples of species of global significance such as the Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) and the Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus aculeatus).
In 1999, the Australian Government’s Department of Environment et al. published a threat abatement plan (TAP) which established a national framework to guide and coordinate Australia’s response to the impacts of European red foxes on biodiversity. It sought to comply with Australia’s Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 to promote the recovery of species and ecological communities that are endangered or vulnerable, and to prevent other species and ecological communities from becoming endangered.
In Schedule 3 of the Act, Predation by the European Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) is listed as a key threatening process. The focus of this plan is on the actions required to reduce the threat posed by foxes to endangered or vulnerable species or ecological communities.
It concluded that ‘eradication of foxes on the mainland is not possible‘ and so settled for methods to reduce fox numbers and predation on wildlife in significant areas. The fox abatement plan aimed to reduce the impact of fox predation on native wildlife over a 5-year period by:
implementing fox control programs in specific areas of high conservation priority;
encouraging the development and use of innovative and humane control methods for fox management;
educating land managers and relevant organisations to improve their knowledge of fox impacts and ensure skilled and effective participation in control activities; and
collecting and disseminating information to improve our understanding of the ecology of foxes in Australia, their impacts and methods to control them.
The Australian Government’s funding to implement the plan was to be primarily through funding programmes of the Natural Heritage Trust.
The ideal of the Fox Threat Abatement Plan was to eradicate foxes, which seems fair enough. To achieve fox eradication it proposed:
The mortality rate for foxes must be greater than the replacement rate at all population densities
There must be no immigration
Sufficient foxes must be at risk from the control technique so that mortality from all causes results in a negative rate of population increase
All foxes must be detectable even at low densities
A discounted benefit-cost analysis must favour eradication over control
There must be a suitable socio-political environment (Ed: ‘political will’)
[Source: Bomford and O’Brien, 1995]
.
However, because foxes had become so well established across a vast area, the plan pre-concluded that complete removal of foxes from Australia was well beyond the capacity of available techniques and resources. Saunders et al. (1995) reviewed current knowledge on techniques for suppressing fox populations including poison baiting, shooting, trapping, hunting with dogs and fumigating dens. The review concluded that, with the exception of broad-scale baiting, the existing control methods are expensive, labour intensive, require continuing management effort and can be effective in only limited areas.
[Ed: This reads as a self-fulfilling ‘too-hard basket’ prophecy by bureaucrats. Do nothing, and for sure, nothing will happen]
.
Baiting
The fox abatement plan considered that in most situations, poison baiting (using 1080 poison) was the most effective method of reducing fox numbers and impact. However, it acknowledged the negative impact on non-target species. “A major drawback is that it may affect native carnivores and scavengers such as dingoes, quolls, goannas and some scavenging birds, and also domestic dogs.” Whoops.
“Aerial baiting of foxes has been demonstrated to be an effective method of control for covering large areas provided the risk of non-target bait uptake is minimal.”
Sounds the kind of spiel akin to the CIA about its collateral damage in Vietnam with its Agent Orange sorties. Well Western Australia is happy to use aerial baiting of 1080 over large areas (up to three million hectares) and has been shown to dramatically reduce fox numbers. Apparently, it has had minimal impact on populations of rare species because the native fauna somehow have a higher resistance to the naturally occurring 1080 poison found in native plants. Mmm, where is the proof?
..
Biological Control
This was more conceptual a strategy, since no current pathogen yet exists that is virulent, humane and specific to foxes and not transferable to other species. The idea is that by targeting fox fertility, an effective long-term approach to reducing their numbers can be achieved. Fertility control is still at an experimental stage of development. It has not been successfully applied to a free-ranging population of wild vertebrates over a large area nor has it been attempted as a method of reducing the impacts of predation on an endangered or vulnerable species. Methods of fertility control include hormone treatment and sterility (immunocontraceptive technology). However, some scientists and wildlife managers remain sceptical about the likely success and effectiveness of this approach (Carter, 1995). The obstacles to achieving a workable method are formidable and include:
difficulty of isolating an infectious virus specific to foxes;
difficulty of developing a contraceptive vaccine;
difficulty of combining the two into a treatment that causes permanent sterility and no other significant disorders in an infected fox;
the possibility that in the field, natural selection and elements of fox ecology may overcome or compensate for any attack on the species’ reproductive capacity;
social concerns that the methods may not be controllable once released; and
the need to be cost-effective relative to other methods.
.
Barriers to Fox Invasion
Fences have been proposed as a component in conservation management programs to protect endangered species from predators such as foxes and cats. A large range of fence designs has been used to exclude foxes from particular areas but there is little information on the effectiveness of particular designs.
A recent review of predator-proof fencing in Australia (Coman and McCutchan, 1994) found that although fences can be a significant barrier to foxes, even the most elaborate can be breached. Frequent monitoring for the presence of foxes inside the fence is an essential precaution as considerable damage can be caused by a single fox breaching the fence.
Shortcomings of fences include posing a hazard to non-target wildlife, restricting the natural ability of native animals to disperse, the high cost of predator-proof fencing and the necessary maintenance costs for it to be effective. However, recent studies at Shark Bay, Western Australia have found that a combination strategy of fencing, baiting, trapping along with a combination of natural water barriers, can be effective fencing on peninsulas (Department of Conservation and Land Management, 1994).
[Ed: Question is did it adversely affect non-target native species? One could incinerate the entire landscape, defoliate it, concrete it so there may be not foxes left, but then no wildlife as well. This seems consistent with West Australia’s simplistic blanket one-size-fits-all approach to environmental control].
.
Habitat Management
In environments with dense vegetation, steep topography, rocky crevices or extensive wetlands, prey are less likely to be caught by foxes (Saunders et al.et. al. 1995). [Ed: This would seem to describe the Blue Mountains landscape with its many impassable escarpments]
The foraging efficiency of foxes seems to be maximal in open habitats where they are able to range widely and freely. They readily use roads, tracks and other cleared access ways through denser vegetation or complex topography. [Ed: This has been encouraged by the frequent fire regime of the Rural Fires Service and NPWS to remove thick vegetation labelled as ‘fuel’].
Arboreal marsupials become vulnerable when they descend to the ground to move between trees. A continuous canopy and a thick understorey of shrubs enable them to move about in the trees where they are not at risk from fox predation. An important conservation strategy for some situations will be to minimise habitat fragmentation and to investigate options for fire, grazing or other management practices which do not destroy ground habitat.
.
Fox Bounties
Reviews of the history of fox management in particular (Braysher, 1993; Saunders et al.et. al. 1995), concluded that fox bounties have rarely been effective. There is little evidence, except occasionally and in small areas, that hunting of foxes has a significant or lasting impact on fox numbers or the damage they cause. Where private land adjoins or contains important wildlife habitat, assistance or encouragement to landholders and the development of incentives to promote fox control on private land may be appropriate, especially if the property forms part of a buffer zone to protect threatened species populations.
[Ed: This is a scientific lesson for the current NSW OFarrell Government in light of its recent decision to counter legislate for hunting in 79 National Parks across the State for supposed feral animals like foxes]
Then in 2003, the NPWS along with the Blue Mountains Council and other government agencies commissioned a public survey using a questionnaire method to gauge public perception about the impact of foxes across the Blue Mountains. An external consultant as engaged and a committee formed, the Blue Mountains Urban Fox Steering Committee‘.
The survey found that foxes were indeed considered a problem in the Blue Mountains. In January 2004, published in the survey results included was that 64% of those surveyed considered foxes to be a major problem. The impact of foxes was 30% domestic animal impacts, 12% wildlife impacts, and 6% property damage impacts. 53% of respondents felt that not enough was being done to manage foxes in the Blue Mountains townships and surrounding natural areas.
And so the assembled committee prepared a strategy document on the management of ‘urban foxes’ and some education material. But it wasn’t to control foxes…
“The top two priorities of this strategy are for:
community education
local research on foxes and their impacts.
.
It was a bureaucratic waste of time so that Blue Mountains NPWS could be politically seen to be thinking about doing something about foxes. The gain was corp0rate-political for NPWS Blue Mountains Senior Ranger, Chris Banffy, to be seen to be doing something on paper, but nothing on the ground, financial gain for the engaged Pest Management Consultant, Nicola Mason.
True to consultant form there was the big survey, survey advertising, data collation, published results in January 2004 and a follow up community workshop on 26th March 2004.
Yes, there was community education published in May 2004. It took the form of another two page A4 brochure. Here it is, as two scanned pages.
.
Community Education Page 1:
Click image to enlarge and read
.
Community Education Page 2:
Click image to enlarge and read
.
And of course, NPWS did nothing about the Blue Mountains confirmed fox problem. It just built a bigger library of reports.
Was it due to lack of funding or lack of direction from Environment ministers. Or perhaps it always just a token public servant ‘look busy’ project to be seen to be thinking about doing something to justify one’s cosy job perpetuation? Certainly to the foxes of the Blue Mountains, it was business-as-usual and they saw nothing from the entire exercise.
And still the fox threat continues unabated
.
The whole project was a steaming scat, perhaps one of the better construed abuses of taxpayer and ratepayer funds of the Blue Mountains in living memory.
In 2006, the NPWS then umbrella department called the ‘Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) in its ‘State of the Environment Report 2006′, Chapter 6 on Biodiversity, reported on ‘ Terrestrial Invasive Species (Section 6.4). It acknowledged the feral predation problem, combining it with the weed problem:
“Invasive species remain one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in New South Wales. Over half of all the key threatening processes listed relate to invasive species. Once invasive species become widely established, few can ever be eradicated, and controlling them must focus on strategically limiting their impacts on biodiversity. The main vertebrate pests in NSW have been present for the last century, with many widespread across the State.
Predation by foxes and cats is implicated in the decline or extinction of numerous small- to medium-sized animals. Herbivores, particularly rabbits and feral goats, are responsible for overgrazing of native vegetation and land degradation. Some 1350 exotic plant species have become established in NSW, more than 300 of which are significant environmental weeds. New pest species continue to become established in the environment. Combining prevention, early detection and eradication is the most cost-effective way to minimise the impacts of new pests.”
.
DECC listed ‘Introduced Terrestrial Species’ (Ed: a fancy name for feral foxes and cats, etc) as a key bio-indicator of National Park health, with pest animals having a devastating impact on biodiversity. Predation by feral cats and red foxes had contributed to regional declines and the extinction of a range of native species, particularly among small-to medium-sized ground-dwelling and semi-arboreal mammals, ground-nesting birds, and freshwater turtles (Dickman 1996).
DECC recommended better coordination efforts across jurisdictions to target control efforts for species listed as key threatening processes, and research into more effective and target-specific control methods, such as biological control. It prepared a NSW Threat Abatement Plan (TAP). It prioritised feral cat control based on a review of the evidence of cat impacts, and little mention of foxes. The threat abatement strategy was “Research…Develop and trial a cat-specific bait that will ensure non-target species are not impacted.”
Then three years hence in 2007, the NPWS fox survey report was getting a tad stale, so NPWS did another survey and another report. The Katoomba NPWS regional office this time was aggregation feral animals with weeds, and calling the lot ‘pests’. It was drafting its ‘regional pest strategy’ and foxes were now grouped with weeds. It asked for community input, but like most government strategies, they stopped short of funded action to do anything except generate another report confirming a problem that needed to be addressed. This is the report:
Ed: Another year another plan, nothing done, ongoing fox predation, less wildlife.
.
We end here as we began, with a last word from a concerned reader, which succinctly tells it as it is:
.
‘Act now to save native wildlife or it’ll be too late‘
.
“This letter is an appeal on behalf of all our endangered native creatures being destroyed by the ever-increasing numbers of feral animals.
The Federal Government estimates there are 18 million feral cats roaming our countryside killing our unique marsupials and birds in numbers that equate to a massacre. There are also countless numbers of foxes doing their best to wipe out our wildlife. And those are only two of the dreadful “invasive” animals, as the Government calls them. There are also cane toads, carp, pigs and goats.
Unfortunately for our native creatures there is not a politician in Australia who seems to be interested in this matter. They will jump up and down about whales, but ask them to show some interest in our native wildlife and they are struck dumb. If you ask the political parties they will say they have policies to solve these problems but that is empty rhetoric. No one is doing anything constructive to address this problem.
In the case of feral cats, I am advised that governments have access to a number of viruses that could be used with some success but I can only surmise these brave politicians are afraid of a backlash from the “domestic cat lobby”, even though there are vaccines available to protect pet cats.
The only party that I thought might show an interest in this problem, the Greens, hides behinds a screen of policy statements that means absolutely nothing unless implemented with some positive action.
Perhaps someone with some interest in this terrible problem and who has the clout to do something about it might start the ball rolling to protect our native wildlife. Otherwise future generations of Australians may see our brilliant birds and fascinating marsupials only in zoos.
[Source: ‘Act now to save native wildlife or it’ll be too late‘, (letter to the editor) by Neville Ridge, Bowral, Sydney Morning Herald, 20090110, p.24]
.
…well perhaps not the last word…
Fox Predation – unequivocal results
Roland Van Zelst, left, Rene Mooejkind and Darren Bain with their night’s haul.
(Photo by Lee Griffith)
.
Hundreds of foxes and other feral animals have been culled in agricultural regions across WA to protect livestock and native animals from the destructive pests.
At the weekend, hundreds of farmers and scores of volunteers took part in the annual Red Card for Red Fox drive which encourages rural communities to bait and shoot foxes.
The cull will resume on the March 20-21 weekend.
Now in its eighth year, the Red Fox Drive aims to reduce Australia’s seven million-strong fox population. During the cull weekends, agricultural communities also target feral pigs, cats and rabbits. In the community of Wandering, 120km south-east of Perth, locals culled 140 foxes, nine feral pigs, 12 feral cats and 43 rabbits.
Co-ordinator Lisa Turton said the aim was to keep the fox population at a manageable level.
“We will never be able to eradicate the foxes,” Ms Turton said. “But we need to ensure that their populations are low because they do get to the young lambs and they target the native birds and marsupials.” Foxes eat an average of 136kg of food a year, including lambs, mice, rabbits and many species of native animals.
Ms Turton said those participating in the drive were not “cowboys” with guns but instead followed strict guidelines. “Everybody who takes part must do so on their own land,” she said. “We don’t just go out on the road and start shooting. We do this to protect the native species.”
Last year, 5000 foxes, 230 feral cats and 2500 rabbits were shot over the four weekends throughout WA.
Response from the Livestock Health and Pest Authority 20120914:
Livestock Health and Pest Authorities (LHPAs) are responsible for administering and enforcing the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 (RLP Act), which governs the control of declared pest animals in New South Wales (NSW). Animals declared as pests include; feral pigs, wild dogs and European wild rabbits. The declaration of the species as pests requires landholders to control them. Other animals such as foxes, goats and deer are feral and considered pests by many people but the legislation doesn’t require landholders to continually control them.
There are many reasons why these other species of feral animals are not declared pests such as, restricted control options (in the case of fox control), public perception, potential financial value and even recreational value. Therefore the control of these species essentially lies with the landholder to determine whether they need to control them based on impacts caused by the species not because the landholder is legally required to. For example, foxes preying on lambs on an agricultural property, or foxes preying on an endangered species in a National Park.
LHPAs are a statutory authority funded via a rating system whereby landholders with 10 hectares or more pay compulsory rates to the LHPA. LHPAs provide assistance to these landholders in relation to livestock health and pest animal control. LHPAs also provide much greater benefit to the general community through livestock disease surveillance and disease control, and the coordination of pest and feral animal control programs on LHPA rateable and non rateable land.
LHPAs cannot simply declare animal species as pests under the RLP Act. This decision is made by government and LHPAs enforce the legislation set by government. Despite this, LHPAs are involved in coordinating numerous fox control programs around NSW for both agricultural and environmental benefits.
Legal restrictions on pesticide use and restrictions on other control techniques present challenges for landholders in implementing effective fox control. There are restrictions on the distance baits must be laid from houses, a requirement to notify all people who are within 1km of bait sites, and those laying the bait require a training qualification to use and store the pesticide known as 1080. This presents a problem with implementing fox control along the urban and peri-urban corridor along the Great Western Highway in the Blue Mountains.
LHPAs do not set these restrictions. These are set in Pesticide legislation and regulated by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), and are in place for valid reasons such as reducing the likely impact to animals like domestic dogs which are very susceptible to 1080. LHPAs must however ensure that the restrictions can be observed and applied by the person laying baits to ensure that it is used safely and effectively whilst minimising risks.
1080 is a very effective poison to control carnivores and is very target specific contrary to what many people are led to believe. It is a naturally occurring chemical in Australia and as a result of this many of our native species, particularly birds and reptiles have high natural tolerances to 1080.
Rubber jaw leg hold traps for foxes and wild dogs is effective but generally very labour intensive and require specialised skills. Cage trapping is considered ineffective and only occasionally results in success. Baiting is generally used to reduce populations significantly and trapping is utilised as a secondary technique which aims at maintaining populations at a low level.
The Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (BMWHA) is an enormous area much of which is completely inaccessible. Despite a history of control programs, pest and feral animals are still present, even if in low densities due to the success of control programs. On mainland Australia, despite developments in control techniques, research and understanding of feral and pest animal biology, we are yet to eradicate an introduced vertebrate pest species.
Due to budgetary constraints pest and feral animal control has become much more strategic over the last decade. Pest control is being prioritised based on impacts caused by a particular species whether it is a feral or a declared pest and programs have become highly coordinated to get the most effective results with the available resources. Coordination has involved the establishment of working groups, one such example is the Oberon feral pig and wild dog working group which largely covers most of the BMWHA and includes representatives from various government departments and private landholders who work together to coordinate and implement programs which provide joint benefit to agriculture and the environment.
Pest control can be a sensitive issue and although it may seem little is being achieved, there are a number of programs being implemented particularly in the BMWHA which is a significant conservation area with unique values. The urban corridor through the middle of it adds to its uniqueness but also presents many challenges one of which is pest management. Urban fringe areas generally support higher densities of some pest animals, namely foxes, as we provide them with ideal opportunities to prosper such as food and harbour which are the fundamentals for their survival. We do this without even realising for example, leaving food out for dogs or keeping poultry in our backyards. These are simple examples that are highly attractive to foxes and they can’t resist and won’t refuse them.
Community education and responsible domestic animal keeping is the key to eliminating most of the problem. Pest and feral animal control is a landscape issue and therefore everyone’s problem, not just government. LHPAs will continue to assist landholders and coordinate control programs working within the legislation to ensure that pest control is target specific and effective in providing benefits to agriculture and the environment.’
Steve ParkerRangerCumberland Livestock Health and Pest Authority
An emaciated Tiger in a Vietnamese farm cage awaits slaughter for TCM Tiger PartsA mascot of an evil, barbaric and low-life society
.
Vietnam is the most backward country for the illegal wildlife trade according to the latest wildlife report by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
Despite the growing middle class of Vietnam, the cultural practice of wildlife witchcraft quackery persists. It is this new wealth that is enabling more Vietnamese to drive the slaughter of wlidlife such as Rhinos, Elephants and Tigers for their body parts. The worse ‘demand countries’ for wildlife parts according to the WWF are Vietnam, China and Thailand.
The demand in wildlife parts is mainly driven from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), which is an ancient backward cult in witchcraft quackery. The TCM witchdoctors prey on superstitious simpletons who think drinking tiger bone wine will cure chronic ailments. The TCM Barbaric Cult is a global chronic ailment in superstitious barbarism that is driving sadistic persecution of precious endangered wildlife. TCM is no different to the Khmer Rouge, except the TCM Barbaric Cult targets wildlife instead of people.
They evangelise TCM cures anything from fatigue, stroke, cancer, back pain, migraine and low libido, which is all misleading lies. It has its own quack terms such as ‘Yin Deficiency’, ‘Yang Deficiency’, ‘Qi Stagnation’. TCM dimwits certainly have ‘deficiency’ alright in the intelligence department. Whatever the hocus-pocus names, TCM is backward, barbaric, sadistic, cruel, illegal, and doesn’t bloody well work anyway. Only sad simpletons would spend a cent on quackery. Those who traffick in wildlife parts deserve the same fate as the wildlife.
.
TCM relies on the illegal black market in wildlife parts trafficking. It is overdue for the backward practices of TCM to be outlawed globally.
A TCM practitioner plying her trade in Yin/Yang Bollocks
The following articles highlight the problem of the increasing illegal trade in wildlife parts for Traditional Chinese Medicine. When one visits the cities of these countries and see the every inctreasing shining skyline, one can be mistaken for believing one is entering a modern civilisation.
One the eve of the opening of the latest CITES session the wildlife group WWF has released a report that shows Vietnam is the worse country for the illegal wildlife trade. In the traffic light system used by the WWF to rank countries Vietnam scored a red in trade in rhino and tigers with a yellow card for elephants.
“It is time for Vietnam to face the fact that its illegal consumption of rhino horn is driving the widespread poaching of endangered Rhinos in Africa, and that it must crack down on the illegal rhino horn trade. Viet Nam should review its penalties and immediately curtail retail markets, including Internet advertising for horn,” said Elisabeth McLellan, Global Species Programme manager at WWF.
A number of Vietnamese people have been arrested over recent years in South Africa for being involved in rhino smuggling. Even some Vietnamese diplomats have been caught involved in the trade.
China is given a yellow card for its involvement in the elephant ivory trade. The country has been highlighted as having inadequate management of its legal ivory market and this offers a conduit for illegally poached ivory to find a legitimate market.
Tusks of Elephants savagedly butchered for TCM, their tusks chainsawed off while still alive. This is a TCM stockpile of tusks intercepted in a shipping container in Malaysia
.
Skulls of Cambodians savagedly butchered by the Khmer Rouge This is a stockpile of human skulls in the Tuolsleng Genocide Museum in Phnom Penh
.
The WWF reports calls on the Chinese government to dramatically improve its enforcement of the ivory market. It also calls on the government to remind its workers involved in major projects in Africa that anyone caught importing illegal wildlife products into China would be prosecuted, and if convicted, severely penalized.
While China got a yellow card for the ivory trade Thailand scored a red due to a legal loop-hole that makes it easy for illegally poached ivory to enter the luxury goods market.
“In Thailand, illegal African ivory is being openly sold in up-scale boutiques that cater to unsuspecting tourists. Governments will be taking up this troubling issue this week. So far Thailand has not responded adequately to concerns and, with the amount of ivory of uncertain origin in circulation, the only credible option at this stage is a ban on ivory trade,” McLellan said.
There is good news in the report as well. The WWF commends the countries from central Africa who recently signed a multinational agreement to tackle poaching.
“Although most Central African countries receive yellow or red scores for elephants, there are some encouraging signals. Last month Gabon burned its entire ivory stockpile, to ensure that no tusks would leak into illegal trade, and President Ali Bongo committed to both increasing protections in the country’s parks and to ensuring that those committing wildlife crimes are prosecuted and sent to prison.” said WWF Global Species Programme manager Wendy Elliott.
The brightest spot of the report though goes to Nepal which last year, 2011, saw no losses to its rhino population due to improvements to anti-poaching and other law enforcement efforts.
[Source: ‘Vietnam gets failing grade in WWF’s illegal wildlife trade report card’, by Wynne Parry, LiveScienceSun, 20120722, ^http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/vietnam-gets-failing-grade-in-wwfs-illegal-wildlife-trade-report-card]
.Sumatran Rhino (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis)
Members of the species once inhabited rainforests, swamps and cloud forests in India, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and China.
In historical times they lived in southwest China, particularly in Sichuan.
But with TCM barbarism they have become persecuted and are now critically endangered,
with only six substantial populations in the wild: four on Sumatra, one on Borneo, and one in the Malay Peninsula.
(Photo: Bill Konstant/International Rhino Foundation)
.
Rhinoceroses are poached for their horns that are then sold on the global black market to collectors and for medicinal purposes.
A conservation group, the World Wildlife Fund, has put together a report card ranking 23 nations’ compliance with an international treaty regulating the trade in wild animals. The report card focuses on three species sought after on the international black market: elephants, tigers and rhinoceroses, and evaluates how well certain countries have held up their commitments as part of the treaty.
“These are just three species, and they are probably the three most talked about, so they are a kind of bellwether for wider problems,” said Colman O Criodain, wildlife trade specialist with the WWF.
The report looks at countries where these animals originate and must travel through, as well as the countries where they arrive for sale. There were some bright spots: India and Nepal received green marks for all three species, showing they had made progress toward complying with the treaty and enforcing policies to prevent the illegal trade.
Many countries, however, received red marks indicating they are failing to uphold their commitments under the treaty.
There have already been consequences for animals. In the last decade, the western black rhino went extinct and the Indochinese Javan rhinoceros was eradicated from Vietnam. Poaching played a crucial role, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Other subspecies of these large, plant-eating creatures are driven by demand for their horns. In Vietnam, demand for rhino horn has boomed thanks to rumors it has healing and aphrodisiac properties, O Criodain said.
For Asians seeking aphrodisiacs?Viagra is proven to work, but TCM is bollocks
.
The report calls out Vietnam, which WWF says is the top destination for South African rhino horn, saying Vietnam’s penalties for participating in the illegal trade are weak and legal measures are insufficient to curtail illegal trade on the Internet. “Despite numerous seizures elsewhere implicating (Viet Nam), there has been no recorded seizure of rhino horn in the country since 2008,” reads a statement issued by WWF.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, a treaty signed by 175 nations, makes nearly all commercial trade in rhino horns, elephant ivory, tiger parts and other species threatened with extinction illegal. In addition, signatories committed to regulating trade within their borders.
WWF ranked nations’ compliance with the treaty — evaluating whether or not the nation had adopted policies that supported the treaty — and the nations’ enforcement of those policies.
A nation could have good laws on the books but fail to enforce them. For instance, China has laws tightly controlling the sale of elephant ivory. However, it does not have a strong record of enforcing them, O Criodain said.
The report card is not comprehensive; rather it is a snapshot that focuses on certain countries that face the highest levels of illegal trade in these three species. Countries from which a particular species has been eradicated, such as Central Africa which has lost all of its rhinos, escaped an evaluation, O’Criodain noted.
The evaluation is based on government announcements reported in media, CITES documentation and information collected by Traffic, a wildlife trade monitoring network that is a joint program of the WWF and IUCN.
.
Bile being extracted from a bear’s gall bladder – while it is conscious
(ENV photo)
.
In Vietnam, Ha Long Bear Bile Farms continue to flout the law by selling bile to Korean tourists @ $30 per cc.
Vietnam’s bears are being pushed to the edge of extinction according to ENV, primarily due to the illegal hunting and trade to support the demand for bear bile used as a traditional form of medicine (TCM). Hundreds of Asian tourists including many Koreans, visit per week, watch the extraction process, drink bear gall wine and pay $30 per CC for take-away bile. The plight of these bears is truly pitiful.
Most of the approximately 3,500 bears in Vietnamese farms are thought to have been caught as cubs in the wild and then raised for the painful extraction of bile from their gall bladders.
.
ENV produced this powerful public service announcement to persuade people not to drink bear bile wine.
‘Vietnam, Laos and Mozambique are the countries that do the least to crack down on an illegal trade in animal parts that is threatening the survival of elephants, rhinos and tigers, the WWF conservation group said on Monday.
In its ‘Wildlife Crime Scorecard’ report, it said 23 countries surveyed mostly in Africa and Asia, the main sources and destinations of animal parts, could all do more to enforce laws banning a trade that WWF said was increasingly run by international crime syndicates.’
.
‘Vietnam proposes legalizing use of tiger parts in traditional medicines’
‘Vietnam has proposed a move that activists allege would boost tiger poaching across the world. The country has proposed legalising the use of parts of captive bred tigers that die of natural causes in traditional medicines. If approved, this is likely to spur demand for body parts of the big cat in the international market and hit tiger conservation efforts currently underway. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) of Vietnam sent the proposal to the prime minister of the country in March this year.
The disclosure has taken the international community, which is currently discussing a coordinated strategy for recovering global tiger population in New Delhi, by shock. The proposal was brought to the notice of the tiger range countries by non-profits when they were discussing the measures to eliminate the demand for tiger parts during the 1st Stocktaking Meeting of the Global Tiger Recovery Programme (GTRP) between May 15 and May 17. The conference was organised by National Tiger Conservation Authority of India along with the Global Tiger Forum, Global Tiger Initiative and the World Bank to take stock of the GTRP, which was adopted in 2010 and aims at doubling the global wild tiger population by 2022. Currently, around 3,200 wild tigers thrive in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Russia, Thailand and Vietnam.
Vietnam, however, did not mention the MARD proposal in its draft GTRP implementation report, a document each of the tiger range countries submitted to explain the actions taken by their governments for tiger conservation. The proposal is part of an investigation report prepared by the MARD on the wild and captive-bred tigers in Vietnam. Around 112 tigers are kept in breeding farms in Vietnam. “According to Vietnam’s law and International Convention, any activity of trading or using tigers and tiger products is prohibited. Tiger breeding facilities therefore can gain no profit. Moreover, because of the regulations against tiger trading, these facilities don’t have specific breeding purposes,” says the report. It further states that “dead tigers (from captive facilities) can be used to make specimens and traditional medicine on a pilot basis.”
But conservationists are not pleased. “This is in contradiction of the spirit of UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and GTRP. We want to give a clear message to Vietnam that if it goes ahead with the plan, we might have to take action against it in whatever capacity we can,” says Keshav Varma, programme director of the Global Tiger Initiative of the World Bank. The tiger range countries, including Vietnam, are signatories to CITES that prohibits the trade in tiger parts and derivatives, including domestic trade.
When asked, the representative of Vietnam’s ministry of natural resource and environment said the proposal came from a different ministry and he could not say much about it. He, however, hoped that the proposal would not be approved by their prime minister. “We are appalled that a few countries promise something else on international platforms while their domestic policies imply something else. If they allow trade of dead tigers kept in captivity, many tigers will be killed in the wild and their parts will be sold under the wrap of this scheme,” says Debbie Banks of UK-based non-profit, Environmental Investigation Agency.
So when you visit your Ying Yang Traditional Chinese Medicine Quack, remember this tiger suffered for your healing cult.
.
Is China above board?
.
In the meeting apprehensions were also expressed regarding China’s domestic policies on captive tiger breeding and trade. For long tiger bones have been used in traditional medicines and wines in China. This had made the country principal destination for tiger parts from all over the world. In 1993, China prohibited the use, manufacture, sale, import and export of tiger bone products and products labelled as containing tiger bones.
However, in 2007, the State Forestry Administration (SFA), of China issued guidelines for the registration, labelling and sale of tiger and leopard skins of “legal origin.” “This seems to contradict China’s claim that trade in tiger parts is banned in the country. We have consistently requested clarification from China over just how many skins have been registered, how many have been sold under this policy, how many have come from captive bred sources, how many are reportedly from the wild and how legality has been verified. They have never responded,” says Banks.
China has also failed to meet the CITES resolution that it would take “measures to restrict the captive population to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers.” The captive tigers in China have reportedly increased from 6,000 in 2010 to 9,000 now. There are allegations that the captive farms stockpiles the tiger bones and other parts of dead tigers. There is no transparency from China on where these stockpiles end up. “The issue of whether stockpiling of tiger bones in the captive farms in China is for research or for commercial use needs further clarification and is a serious cause of concern. We urge that China should follow the CITES resolution of keeping the captive bred tiger population restricted to support wild population in letter and spirit,” says Rajesh Gopal, member secretary of National Tiger Conservation Authority.
Roaring demand for tiger bone tonic wine during the Year of the Tiger has delighted those taking part in the underground industry but sent chills through conservationists.
Despite a national prohibition on dealing in tiger body parts, online trade and tiger farms are flourishing, leading opponents to call for additional protection of the endangered species.
“In Western countries, people believe in Western medicine but there has seldom been as much enthusiasm for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as there is now, especially those made from animals,” said Ge Rui, Asian Regional Director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
She said tiger farms are now a major threat to the species. While the farms are tolerated, the State Forest Ministry issued a notice at the end of last year stating that tiger bodies from the farms should be sealed for safekeeping.
“The government has made a great deal of effort to curb the illegal trade in rare and endangered species in recent years,” Ge said. “But their work is mainly focused on cross-border trade. The government allows the operation of tiger farms.”
According to statistics from the International Fund for Animal Welfare, there are now about 3,200 wild tigers worldwide.
In China, only about 20 tigers are thought to be left in the wild.
“The existence of tiger farms and increasing illegal trade in tiger products is seriously threatening this precious species,” she said. “In the Year of the Tiger, we should be doing more.”
Chinese animal rights groups recently launched an online campaign pushing for more protection of wild animals.
Despite the concern, consumers are still eager to get their hands on the illegal tonic wine.
“Tiger bone tonic wine will surely be popular this year,” said a seller from the Beijing Xinghuo Company.
“Nothing could be better than sending it to your relatives or leaders during the Year of the Tiger, both for good wishes and to keep them healthy.”
The company sells a wide range of wines, including a tiger bone tonic wine.
A 500 ml bottle of tiger bone wine, made in Heilongjiang province, sells for 1,380 yuan.
Tiger Wine – extracted from Tigers
It may as well be the cerebral fluid of Cambodians butchered at the hand of the Khmer Rouge
.
Human Cerebrospinal fluid
Not as marketable in test tubes, but then TCM Cultists haven’t got around to bottling and branding this yet
.
However, a bottle of tiger bone wine, said to be from Tongrentang, the place that supplied medicine to the royal pharmacy during the Qing Dynasty for 188 years, is even more expensive. Such wine, made in 1990s, sells for around 25,000 yuan.
The wine, which is believed to have medicinal properties, should improve with age, so the older the bottle, the higher the price. Those produced in the 1980s can sell for 60,000 yuan for 323 ml.
“Real tiger bone tonic wine is very popular in the market now,” said Sjkexiao, a 20-year old man who was looking to sell two bottles online that he claimed was tiger bone wine made in Tongrentang in 1984.
He said tiger bone tonic wine had been increasing in price in recent years.
Tigers have been used in traditional Chinese medicine for centuries. Tiger bone tonic wine is used in the treatment of arthritis and rheumatism.
China joined the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1981. It imposed a ban on the harvesting of tiger bones and outlawed all trade in tiger body parts in 1993.
As a result, tiger bone remedies were removed from TCM dictionaries.
“Medicines with parts from rare animals are not allowed to be sold now,” said a staff member, surnamed Zhang, at a Cachet pharmacy.
She suggested another medicinal wine, named Hongmao Medical Wine, that was priced at 250 yuan and which claimed to contain leopard bones.
“Money cannot buy a genuine bottle of tiger bone wine because of its scarcity,” she said. “You can never find such medicine in the stores now. Wine containing real tiger bones is really more effective than others.”
However, doctors were quick to question the medicinal value of tiger bone tonic.
“It is the same as other medicinal wines,” said Yue Debo, a doctor with more than 20 years’ experience in the department of orthopedics at the China-Japan Friendship Hospital. “It doesn’t have any miraculous effect.”
.
Comment: by Willson 20111230:
“This is why I will never allow any of my companies or affiliates to do business with the Chinese. The Chinese are unworthy of respect and therefore unworthy of becoming a trade partner. The trade in tiger bone wine is not an underground industry. It is a mainstream industry condoned by the Chinese government. My companies will never sell technology to the Chinese so long as this and other wildlife is threatened with government sanctioning.”
.
Comment: by Dan 2011-12-30 06:37
“China is shameful!“
.
‘India lucrative target for illegal wildlife trade’
India remains a “lucrative target” in the USD 20 billion illegal trade of wildlife articles per year, an official document says.
“The most serious and immediate risk to many species is poaching for wildlife trade. …South Asian countries account for 13 to 15 per cent of the world’s biodiversity and so remain a lucrative target of the trade,” says the report prepared by the Environment Ministry.
Wild animals are killed for the flourishing illegal international trade in their skins, bones, flesh, fur, used for decoration, clothing, medicine, and unconventional exotic food, says the Environmental and Social Framework Document for “Strengthening Regional Cooperation in Wildlife Protection in Asia”.
Victims of the trade include the iconic tiger and elephant, the snow leopard, the common leopard, the one-horn rhino, pangolin, brown bear, several species of deer and reptiles, seahorses, star tortoises, butterflies, peacocks, hornbills, parrots, parakeets and birds of prey, and corals, it says.
Pangolines poached for TCM
.
“The primary market for many of these products is outside South Asia, often in East Asia for items of presumed pharmacological utility,” says the document is prepared for financial assistance from the World Bank under regional International Development Association (IDA) window.
Noting that the wildlife trade is “big business”, it said due to the clandestine nature of the enterprise, reliable estimates of the composition, volume and value of the trade remain elusive.
“The International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) suggests that the global value of the illegal wildlife related trade exceeds USD 20 billion per year and probably ranks third after narcotics and the illegal weapons trade,” it said.
The report says that poaching techniques are “extremely gruesome”.
“The more egregious methods include skinning or dehorning live animals, and transportation of live creatures in inhuman conditions,” it says.
Particularly damaging is the banned trade in tiger parts much of which is used for its presumed pharmaceutical benefits.
“The World Chinese Medicine Society has declared that tiger parts are not necessary in traditional medicines and that alternatives are available and effective. Yet the illegal trade still flourishes.
Poaching has become so intense that tigers have disappeared from many parks throughout Asia.
“Nowhere has the impact been greater than in India and Nepal which remain the bastions of tiger conservation,” says the document and added that Nepal has emerged as the transit hub for the trade in illegal wildlife commodities destined for consumption in East China.
“Laos is recognized as both a source and transit country while Viet Nam is a transit hub for illegal wildlife trade,” it says.
The economic value of the illegal wildlife trade is determined primarily by cross-border factors. Wildlife are poached in one country, stockpiled in another, and then traded beyond the South Asia region.
“Lack of uniformity in enforcement can result in migration of the trade to other countries with less stringent enforcement. The trade is controlled by criminal organizations which have considerable power over the market and the prices paid to poachers and carriers, making control of the trade even more challenging,” it says.
.
‘SA breeders embrace growing Asian demand for lion bones’
Desktop activists have joined conservationists to raise awareness about the growing demand for lion bones from users of traditional Chinese medicine, but breeders have defended the right to hunt lions born in captivity.
Last week, the online activist organisation Avaaz.com launched a petition imploring President Jacob Zuma to ban the trade of lion bones. “As citizens from around the world with great respect for South Africa and its magnificent natural heritage, we appeal to you to ban the cruel and senseless trade in lion bones and organs, which is encouraging an industry that could drive lions to the brink of extinction,” says the petition, which garnered over 630 000 signatures in a week.
Lion bones are a sought-after ingredient used to make lion bone wine, a substitute for the traditional Asian cure-all, tiger bone wine, which fetches up to R250 000 a case at illicit auctions.
Conservationists have warned that captive breeding and canned hunting programmes in South Africa are providing a source for the lion bone trade. Canned lion hunting is legal in South Africa, as is the exporting of lion carcasses. Lion populations across Africa have been reduced by 90% over the past 50 years, but lion breeders say their operations have nothing to do with the continent’s wild populations.
.
The price of trophies .
Breeders can benefit financially a number of times from the same lion. Cubs are often rented as tourist attractions and visitors pay to pet and interact with them. The fee paid by visitors is then fed back into captive breeding programmes. As adults, the lions are sold to hunters in canned hunting arrangements.
Farmers and hunting operators charge in the region of about $20 000 (R160 000) as a “trophy price” and hunters can expect to pay around $18 000 (R145 000) for other services, excluding taxidermy.
Bob Parsons – Elephant Killer
But the hunters are only interested in the head and skin of the lion, and often leave the bones with the breeder, who can then sell the bones, with a government permit, to Asian buyers for use in making lion bone wine.
It’s estimated that a complete lion skeleton can sell for as much as R80 000. Last year it emerged that over 1 400 lion and leopard trophies were exported from the country in 2009 and 2010.
According to the environmental affairs minister, in 2010, 153 live lions were exported as well as 46 lion skins, 235 carcasses, 592 trophies, 43 bodies and 41 skulls. It was noted that these figures were incomplete as the provinces had not yet captured all their data. Yet there was a 150% growth in exports of lion products from 2009 and 2010.
.
‘Amplifying an illegal industry
.
Chris Mercer, director of the Campaign Against Canned Hunting, said hunting captive-bred lions was “hideously damaging” to conservation. “It’s farming with alternative livestock. They’re only doing it because they make more money farming lions than they do sheep or cattle. But they don’t realise they’re harming the wild populations by creating and amplifying an illegal industry and allowing it to prosper,” he said.
Mercer said he believes the export of lion bones and in fact the entire canned hunting industry should be banned. He pointed out that there was a huge overlap between the rhino horn and lion bone trade. “Many of the Asiatic groups dealing with lion bones are the same people dealing with rhino horn,” he said.
He criticised government for taking a simplistic view of the matter and overlooking the dangers the lion bone trade poses. “The very people who are doing our rhino horn [poaching] are making money out of this. You can just imagine how the illegal trade is going to piggy-back itself onto this legal trade,” he warned.
Banning the entire trade will be difficult. There are almost 200 lion breeders in the country, many of whom are part of the powerful Predator Breeders’ lobby group. The breeding of lions for trophy hunting is a lucrative business. In 2009, the economic value of trophy hunting was estimated to be between R153-million and R832-million.
.
Rapidly going extinct
.
But Pieter Kat, director of the UK-based conservation organisation LionAid, said a lot could be achieved simply by placing a ban on the export of lion bones. Lions are listed on appendix two of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which means that a government permit is needed to export any lion products. “It will take a position of responsibility by South Africa to say, ‘No more, we will not allow this,'” he said.
“South Africa is within its rights [to] say no more export permits,” said Kat.
Kat said that while one could argue about the ethics of breeding lions just to be shot, it was important to bear in mind that whatever South Africa did in terms of its legal trade in lion bones would affect wild lion populations all over the continent.
Kat pointed out that there are only about 20 000 lions left on the entire continent – down from about 200 000 in the 1970s. In the past few years Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and the Republic of Congo-Brazzaville have lost all their lions, while countries like Nigeria, Malawi and Senegal have only a few dozen lions left.
“We’re dealing with a species that is rapidly going extinct but because we are not really focused on lions – we’re talking about elephants and rhinos – it’s a silent extinction,” he said.
He warned that allowing the trade in lion bones to proliferate would stimulate a demand for the product. “Soon someone will [realise] it’s cheaper for to poach than to pay the owner of a captive animal to get the bones,” he said.
But Professor Pieter Potgieter, chairperson of the South African Predator Breeders’ Association, defended the industry saying there is little difference between breeding lions and any other mammal. “Chickens are killed by humans. How are lions different from them?” he asked.
“In principle a lion is not more or less than a crocodile, an ostrich or a butterfly. It’s a form of life. Breeding animals for human exploitation is a natural human process,” he said.
Potgieter said that breeding and hunting lions was only deplorable in the eyes of the public because a “sympathetic myth has been created about the lion as the king of the animals”.
He justified the practice, saying the export of lion bones is a legal trade authorised by the department of environmental affairs and denied that South Africa’s approach to captive breeding and canned lion hunting was feeding into the Asian demand for lion bones. “I don’t think that market is being created by the South African situation. That would happen anyhow and the more the Asian tiger gets extinct, the more people will try to get hold of lion bones as a substitute,” he said.
In 2007 former environmental affairs minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk attempted to put the brakes on canned lion hunting. It was widely reported that the activity had been banned in the country but this is not the case.
Some changes to legislation were made but the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Predator Breeders’ Association and overturned an attempt to enforce a two-year waiting period during which a captive-bred lion would be allowed to roam freely in an extensive wildlife system before being hunted, which conservationists had labeled an attempt to “pretend that the lion is wild”.
The environmental affairs department did not respond to questions by the time of going to print.’
‘Indonesian police seized 14 preserved bodies of critically-endangered Sumatran tigers in a raid on a house near Jakarta, a spokesman said Thursday. A man identified as F.R. was arrested Tuesday in a suburban area of Depok suspected of his involvement in the illegal wildlife trade, national police spokesman Boy Rafli Amar told AFP.
“We confiscated whole preserved bodies of 14 tigers, a lion, three leopards, a clouded leopard, three bears and a tapir and a tiger head,” he said, adding that investigations were ongoing.
The Clouded Leopard (Neofelis nebulosa)
Is a felid found from the Himalayan foothills through mainland Southeast Asia into China, and has been classified as vulnerable in 2008 by IUCN.
Poached for barbaric TCM.
.
Cruel almost beyond belief, this Chinese farm breeds hundreds of tigers in rows of battery cages … so they can be killed and turned into wine…
King, the Siberian tiger, stares at me through the bars of his cage. His two beautiful, graceful companions pace back and forth across their tiny compound. They look crushingly bored. The most exciting thing they can do is paw mournfully at the dirty pools of rainwater on the floor of their cage.
Although the Xiongsen tiger park, near Guilin in south-east China, appears to be a depressingly typical Third World zoo, with a theme park restaurant and open areas where tigers roam, it actually hides a far more sinister secret: it’s a factory farm breeding tigers to be eaten and to be made into wine.
In row upon row of sheds, hundreds of tigers are incarcerated in battery-like cages which they never leave until they are slaughtered.
Visitors to the park can dine on strips of stir-fried tiger with ginger and Chinese vegetables. Also on the menu are tiger soup and a spicy red curry made with tenderised strips of the big cat. Visitors can wash it all down with a glass or two of wine made from Siberian tiger bones.
A waitress at the farm’s restaurant tells me proudly: ‘The tiger meat is produced here. It’s our business. When Government officials come here, we kill a tiger for them so they have fresh meat. Other visitors are given meat from tigers killed in fights. We now have 140 tigers in the freezer.
“We also sell lion meat, bear’s paw, crocodile and snake. The bear’s paw has to be ordered in advance as it takes a long time to cook.”
Hundreds of tigers are incarcerated in battery-like cages by the Chinese TCM Cultists
.
The waitress clearly does not care that she is selling meat and wine from endangered species. She is not worried that selling them is against Chinese and international law, and helps to fuel the poaching that is driving tigers to extinction.
Tigers and other endangered species are being reared on an industrial scale throughout China, despite international treaties forbidding this. The Mail discovered three factory farms breeding tigers in China. The Guilin farm alone has 1,300 tigers, including the incredibly rare and elusive Siberian sub-species.
It rears and slaughters Bengal, South China and White tigers. More than 300 African lions and 400 Asiatic black bears are also reared here for food and traditional Chinese medicines.
The Chinese authorities claim that farms like the one at Guilin are a vital part of the country’s conservation efforts, and that they will one day release these endangered creatures back into the wild.
But my visit to the Xiongsen Bear andTiger Mountain Village shows their real intention could not be more different. For the fact is that these animals could never survive in the wild.
Having spent their lives in tiny, battery-style units, they cannot hunt and would be dead within days of being released. Each shed at the tiger farm – and I saw at least 100 – houses between three and five tigers in a space no larger than a typical family living room. In relative terms, they have about as much space as a battery hen.
The animals have all been bred on the farm. The cubs are taken from their mothers at three months and put in a kindergarten. I saw around 30 tiger cubs in this creche, where they stay until they are old enough to be transferred to the battery units.
Many of the youngsters kept leaping at the fencing. The younger ones simply wanted to play like kittens. The older cubs were already showing signs of stress.
Tigers are naturally solitary creatures that roam over dozens of square miles, so it’s hardly surprising that life in the cages drives them insane. I saw numerous examples of stress-related repetitive behaviour.
The mature animals paced back and forth across their cages for hours on end – three steps forward, three steps back. Some hurled themselves at the bars of their prison cells, while others simply stared into space.
Over-crowding drives the creatures to attack each other, often resulting in death. Officially it is only the tigers killed in such fights that can be eaten or turned into wine. But it is clear that many of them die as a result of a bullet to the head.
They are not the only animals killed. For entertainment, visitors to the animal park can watch the ‘live killing exhibition’, a sick spectacle in which animals are ‘hunted’ and torn to pieces by tigers while onlookers cheer.
I watched in horror as a young cow was stalked and caught by a tiger. Its screams filled the air as it struggled.
.
So Visit China – see its wildlife, taste its wildlife, souvenir its wildlife!Not sure what TCM says how Panda Parts heal you or give you a hard on?
.
A wild tiger would dispatch its prey within moments, but these tigers’ natural killing skills have been blunted by years of captivity. The tiger tried to kill – tearing, biting at the cow’s body in a pathetic-looking frenzy – but it simply didn’t know how. Eventually, the keepers stepped in and put the cow out of its misery.
Virtually all the tigers from the Guilin farm end up at a winery 100 miles to the north, their carcasses dumped in huge vats of rice wine and left to rot for up to nine years.
The Chinese believe that the tiger’s strength passes into the wine as its body decomposes. They also believe that it is a powerful medicine that wards off arthritis, strengthens bones and acts as a general tonic.
Smelling like a mixture of methylated spirits, antiseptic and congealed meat, it is difficult to believe that anyone would willingly drink it, and yet people pay up to £100 a pint for it.
The Guilin farm also has its own small winery and acts as a distribution centre across China. The distribution manager showed me around with a Chinese tourist.
A small dingy office acts as the nerve centre of the warehouse. On the wall were charts showing that day’s deliveries of tiger wine across China. Six crates were sent to Wuhan and another to Tianjing. Six crates of ‘powdered bear’ were sent to Shanghai. Numerous other cities and countless deliveries were also listed.
We were led into the warehouse, where I was hit with the disgusting and potent aroma of tiger wine. I was led past countless crates containing the foul-smelling brew. In the corner of the warehouse was a huge brown earthenware vat. It must have held at least 50 gallons, and its contents were probably worth around £12,000.
“We have three ages of wine,” said the manager. “Three, six or nine-years old. It helps with arthritis and strengthens old people’s bones.”
She slid aside the lid of the earthenware vat to reveal a reddish-brown liquid with an overpowering smell of meths. A piece of string was pulled out of the vat. Attached to the end was a tiger’s rib cage. Small slivers of dark red flesh could still be seen clinging to the bone, even though it had probably been in the vat for at least three years.
The manager then filled up an old plastic water bottle with a pint of wine and handed it to my fellow tourist. He paid £30 for it.
Whatever westerners think of tiger wine, the Chinese regard it as a potent drink with almost magical qualities. In the past, a Chinese doctor may have prescribed small quantities of wine for a short period of time.
But in recent years, big companies have moved into the market and industrialised all parts of the industry. Now the wine is becoming an essential drink for China’s corrupt bureaucrats and the nation’s nouveaux riches.
Conservationists say tiger farming is not only barbaric, it could lead to the animal’s extinction in the wild.
“It is stimulating demand for meat and wine, and this will inevitably lead to more poaching,” says Grace Gabriel, of the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
“It costs £5,000 to raise a tiger from a cub to maturity in one of these farms, while it costs no more than £20 in India to poach one. On the market, a dead tiger can fetch £20,000.
“With such a huge margin, it is inevitable that more people will poach wild tigers if demand increases,” she adds. “There are only a few thousand tigers left in the wild, and the last thing they need is increased demand for their body parts.”
If present trends continue, tigers could be extinct in the wild within a decade. Three subspecies have already vanished. Chinese tigers are down to a pitiful 20 animals in the wild and are “functionally extinct”.
There are only about 450 Siberian tigers left in Russia’s Far East. The remaining 3-4,000 are sparsely scattered across India, Nepal and South-East Asia.
The trouble is that, as tigers become rarer in the wild, their ‘street value’ increases, which in turn encourages even more poaching.
Tigers have already become extinct in India’s most famous reserve at Sariska. Numbers have plunged in several other reserves, too.
Most of these tigers will have been sold to traders in China. The Chinese authorities do virtually nothing to clamp down on this illegal trade, and many corrupt bureaucrats and police earn substantial sums from it.
And demand is continuing to increase as ever more bizarre uses for tigers are promoted. Tiger whiskers are used to ‘cure’ laziness and protect against bullets. Their brains, when mixed with oil and rubbed on the skin, are promoted as a cure for acne. Penises are used as aphrodisiacs, while hearts apparently impart courage, cunning and strength.
Tiger farmers also have their eyes on the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. They hope that a huge influx of tourists will lead to increased demand for tiger wine.
Although it is illegal to trade internationally in such tiger products as wine, the Chinese are lobbying hard to get the law relaxed. This June, the Chinese Government is expected to press the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to allow the trade in ‘medicines’ such as wine produced from farmed tigers.
If agreed, it will lead to a massive increase in tiger farming and tens of thousands of these noble beasts will spend their lives in battery cages.
If the Chinese get their way, then it will almost certainly drive the tigers over the cliff into extinction.
It is almost too late to save this magnificent creature – but not quite.
Illegal dumping in The Gully, Katoomba, Blue Mountains
Reported to local council and promptly removed by local council.
(Photo by Editor 20060702, image free in public domain, click to enlarge)
.
Illegal dumping is not unique to the Blue Mountains, but it continues to be an ongoing problem in this populated area that is situated upstream of the internationally valued Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
Whereas litter is generally individual items of waste products improperly disposed of in the environment, illegal dumping is generally of a larger scale and premeditated. Both are illegal.
Both are selfish, lazy and disrespectful to society and the environment. The larger problem of illegal dumping involves the deliberate or unauthorised dumping, tipping or burying of waste on land that is not licensed or fit to accept that waste. People illegally dump bags of household rubbish, electronic equipment, furniture, mattresses, industrial wastes, construction and demolition materials, garden waste, packaging, tyres, old cars and soil.
It is bad enough that an increasingly populating society that is also increasingly consuming resources is also increasingly contributing to landfill for its waste. Worse is when that waste is illegally dumped and far worse when it is dumped in places that harm native ecology.
Lawn Clippings dumped at remote Hargreaves Lookout Road, west of Blackheath in protected bushland, Blue Mountains, New South Wales
(Photo by Editor 20080405, image free in public domain, click to enlarge)
.
Illegal dumping is more than just unsightly waste in an inappropriate location. It not only reduces property values and costs rate payers a substantial amount of money each year to clean up. Illegal dumping is inherently unnatural which means when dumped in a natural environment, the composition of the waste will have an adverse impact upon the natural ecology – it degrades and spoils local ecology. The waste does not have to be deemed ‘hazardous’ such as toxic chemicals, paints, solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or asbestos for instance.
Lawn clippings and woodchips will cause a moist environment for bacteria and flies to breed and after rain the nutrients will flow and contaminate surrounding soils, vegetation and watercourses. This can be lethal to vulnerable and fragile flora and fauna, especially in Australia which naturally has low nutrient soils.
Illegally dumped waste can poison the soil and kill vegetation. The introduced nutrients such as acids will prevent the vegetation from regenerating and dependent wildlife from returning. Illegal dumping leads to long-term contamination of land, waterways, natural springs and groundwater, particularly when the waste is from an industrial source or contaminated soil.
Subsoil and rubble (left) dumped in The Gully (Katoomba), alongside the old race track
(Photo by Editor 20070310, free in public domain, click to enlarge)
.
Illegal dumping can be dangerous to people (broken glass, syringes, nappies and medical waste, and carcinogenic substances like asbestos) but also it can attract rodents, insects and other vermin. It can provide an ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes and maggots. It can block waterways and stormwater drains, increasing the potential for flooding and erosion, and it can be a potential fire hazard.
The most common cause of illegal dumping in the Blue Mountains is typically on the side of a road where a motorist has carted the waste by trailer.
.
Perhaps it is time to outlaw trailers and to replace them with waste collection services only provided by local council.
.
After all, if there is no means available to cart waste except by hand, the volume of illegal dumping will be reduced and the ability of illegal dumping to be away from residential areas and in natural areas will also be reduced.
Of course trucks can cart larger quantities of waste, but fewer people have access to trucks. This does not mean that greater regulation cannot be imposed on truck drivers. Perhaps every truck load needs to be registered and inspected by local council authorities, or an effective penalty imposed – say $5000 or a custodial sentence.
.
Whatever an effective mix of solutions, unless governments are serious about addressing the problem, illegal dumping shall continue unabated.
.
Lenient law enforcement or the absence thereof, contribute to illegal dumping behaviour – and be clear, we are dealing with a human behavioural issue here.
In 2001, hundreds of tonnes of sand and rubble from the Soldiers Pinch upgrade to the Great Western Highway (Mount Victoria) was dumped by the RTA in The Gully over the top of an Upland Swamp. Permission was given by the Blue Mountains City Council, but without any community consultation. Subsequent actions by the Council involved planting on top of the compressed rubble, instead of properly removing it.
(Photo by Editor 20060702, 5 years on from the 2001 dumping little had grown.
Image free in public domain, click image to enlarge)
.
Shaping correct responsible behaviour requires a combination of a ‘carrot’ incentive and ‘stick’ deterrent approach. If waste is collected from households like weekly garbage, then the incentive for illegal dumping is reduced. Why go to the trouble of driving somewhere to dump when it can be collected from your residence? Similarly, if the cost of collection is low, the incentive to utilise the collection service is stronger.
As the cost of landfill fees is rising due to reducing number of suitable tip sites, some people in order to avoid disposal fees at landfills will choose to illegally dump to save money. the risk of getting caught is low and this is the core problem in trying to change this bad behaviour.
Over 20 tonnes of rubble dumped in The Gully by Sydney Water as part of its Sewerage Amplification Project in 2005
(Photo by Editor 20120624, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)
.
Penalties for illegal dumping vary around the country. For instance, in Queensland under its Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011, there are a range of offences for litter and illegal dumping from $200 on the spot fine for littering through to $16,500 for illegal dumping of large domestic items such as fridges, garden refuse and construction material.
But most offenders do not get caught because the scale of monitoring is unwieldy and practically ubiquitous.
In Victoria , a landfill levy on all households has helped to fund a dedicated Illegal Dumping Strike Force team as part of the Environment Protection Authority in that State. It’s tasks are to support businesses to understand their legal requirements for managing waste and recyclable material, work with its council partners and other government agencies to share intelligence about dumping offences and hotspots, and to investigate and enforce against incidents of large-scale industrial waste dumping.
Household garbage illegally dumped in The Gully near the South Katoomba Rural Fire Brigade, July 2012
(Photo by Editor, 20120703, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)
.
In the Hunter Valley of New South Wales, the Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy (HCCREMS) in its Illegal Dumping project is seeking to address illegal dumping in the region through a range of new initiatives.
Designing and trialing a number of enforcement campaigns to gain further data on illegal dumping ‘hot spots’ and determine effective campaign styles
Trialing different illegal dumping deterrence methods (barriers, cameras, gates, etc) to determine their effectiveness at stopping illegal dumping
Collating illegal dumping data, take photographs and coordinate media and community awareness activities.
Establishing an Illegal Dumping Regional Database using Microsoft Access database software to collate and analyse data collected by councils, from dumping sites. All incidents are entered into the database, which is linked to GIS and is able to produce maps of the locations in each council area.
Allowing Councils to use the intelligence generated from the database to determine appropriate and effective inspection patrol regimes and where access control measures can be installed.
Encouraging all councils to record incidents of illegal dumping on the incident forms developed by the Hunter Regional Illegal Dumping Group and forward these into HCCREMS for entry into the database.
Sample Record of Illegal Dumping reported to Blue Mountains Council by residents
.
Jan 2008: Dumped Garden Refuse opposite 16 Garden St, Katoomba
To The General Manager, BMCCEmailed to council@bmcc.nsw.gov.au
.
‘Sir,
I request for the removal of dumped garden refuse within a bushland adjacent Carlton Street, Katoomba, opposite 16 Garden Street (located at the corner of Garden St and Carlton St). The garden refuse contains weeds and is near a large rock.
Dumped building waste (opposite a recently built house at 20 Carlton St) and cut down trees are also present within the bushland.
Please see attached photographs.
Also, I recommend that Council arrange for its ranger to inform nearby local residents that it is illegal to dump garden refuse and building waste under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act and cut down trees under the Tree Preservation Order. Garden refuse smothers native vegetation, spreads weeds and increases bush fire danger.
As you will be aware, the cutting down of native trees for firewood reduces habitat and creates wood smoke pollution.’
.
Apr 2007: Opposite Megalong Lodge, 40 Acacia Street Katoomba
.
To The General Manager, BMCCEmailed to council@bmcc.nsw.gov.au
.
‘Sir,
I request Council removes a very large amount of dumped garden refuse within escarpment bushland, located adjacent Cliff Drive and across the road from Megalong Lodge, 40 Acacia St, Katoomba.
The dumped refuse is believed to have come from Megalong Lodge, as it is made up of white driveway pebbles, pine needles, Agapanthus and Rhododendron cuttings found on this property. A bush trail in direct line to the property also contains the cuttings. Grass clippings have also been dumped.
Urgent removal of the garden refuse is recommended, since exotic grass is beginning to grow within the escarpment bushland. The dumping was discovered in April 2007. Please see attached photographs.
Also request the ranger to inform nearby local residents that it is illegal to dump garden refuse under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act. Garden refuse is pollution and smothers native vegetation, spreads weeds and increases bush fire danger.‘
.
Dec 2007: Outside Katoomba Golf Club
To The General Manager, BMCCEmailed to council@bmcc.nsw.gov.au
.
‘Sir,
I request for the removal of dumped grass clippings within bushland at Katoomba Golf Course, opposite 165 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba. Dumped clippings are located next to the golf course entrance turnstile. The front lawn of 161 Narrow Neck Road had just been mown at the time of discovery of the still green clippings.Please see the attached photograph.
Also, I request a Council ranger to inform nearby local residents that it is illegal to dump grass cuttings under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act. Grass cuttings smother native vegetation, spread weeds and increase bush fire danger.’
The fire tragedy afflicted Australia’s legendary ‘Conservation Cradle’
A scorched Grose Valley from Evan’s Lookout, looking north up Govett’s Gorge
(Photo by Editor taken 20061209, free in public domain. Free Large Image)
.
A heritage tragedy unfolds
.
A simple lighting stike ignited remote bushland in rugged terrain within the Blue Mountains National Park, over 5km north of the township of Blackheath on 20061113.
Innocuously, the ignition started off on hilly Burra Korain Ridge,It was far from settlement but during relatively calm weather and low temperature, so it was not suppressed but ‘monitored’..then the wind picked up.
.
It and a second ignition west were allowed to continue burning for days until they eventually coalesced with compounded backburning into a firestorm some ten days later down in the Grose Valley. On 20061122, the prized Grose Valley and its iconic and precious Blue Gum Forest were incinerated under a pyrocumulus cloud of towering wood smoke that could be seen from the Sydney coast a hundred kilometres away. Some 14,070 hectares of National Park habitat was burnt. The tragedy did not so much as ‘strike‘ from the lighting itself, but as Blue Mountains residents we saw it ‘unfold‘ over many days and nights under the trusteeship of Bushfire Management.
.
..ten days later
The pyrocumulus cloud of a screaming, dying Grose Valley precious to many, including wildlife
The Grose Valley and its Blue Gum Forest and wildlife burning to death on 20061122
A greenhouse gas estimate was not taken.
.
Community shock, sadness and overwhelming sense of loss
.
How was this allowed to happen?
In the days that followed, many Blue Mountains residents and especially the many conservationists familiar with the Grose Valley and Blue Gum Forest over many years became deeply shocked at learning about the loss of this magnificent sacred preserved forest – its tall 300+ year old rare Blue Gums (Eucalytus deanii).
Without knowledge of personal accounts, one respects that the dramatic scenes of the smoke and fire inflicted personal trauma with many, given so many people’s long and established personal knowledge, affinity, love, awe and respect for..
‘The Blue Gum‘
.
The Habitat Advocate reaches out to these people (doesn’t matter the fact that years have passed) and we choose to express the view of a need to tell truths and to seek some sense of learned maturity from it all. For the Grose Valley contained many tracks, many walks and many special places if one knew where to look. Popes Glen and from Govetts Leap down under Bridal Veil following the popular Rodriguez Pass to Junction Rock then Acacia Flat and the Blue Gum Forest in the heart of the Grose. Many special places includes Beauchamp Falls, Docker Buttress, Pulpit Rock, Lockley Pylon, Anvil Rock lookout, Perrys Lookdown, Hanging Rock, Pierces Pass, Asgard Swamp, and the inaccessible Henson Glen and David Crevasse gorge.
To this editor, the return in 2007 to a previously sacred special, but incinerated Neates Glen was emptying in spirit. There was heartfelt shock and dismay by many local conservationists familiar with the iconic Blue Gum Forest who became deeply saddened by the tragedy.
Neates Glen, as it was But since incinerated, not by the wildife, but by deliberately lit ‘backburning’
.
Phone calls and emails were exchanged with many locals wanting to know the extent of the damage and whether ‘the Blue Gum‘ could recover. The original fire had been fanned westward from Burra Korain Head spotting along the Blackheath Walls escarpment, but then decended and burnt through Perrys Lookdown, Docker Buttress and down and through the Blue Gum. Deliberately lit backburns had descended and burnt out Pierces Pass (Hungerfords Track) through rainforest into the Grose and everyone had seen the pyrocumulus mushroom cloud towering 6000 feet above the Grose on the 22nd.
There was an immense sense of loss. The relatively small Blue Gum Forest, perhaps just several hectares, was unique by its ecological location, by its grand age and by its irreplaceability. The sense of loss was perhaps more pronounced amongst the more mature conservationists, now lesser in number, who knew its original saviours of the 1930s – Alan Rigby, Myles Dunphy and other dedicated bushwalkers who had championed to save it from logging 81 years ago.
The conservation heritage of The Blue Gum Forest dates back to Australia’s earliest conservation campaign from 1931For this reason ‘The Blue Gum Forest’ has been passionately respected as Australia’s ‘Cradle of Conservation’
.
The region is home to threatened or rare species of conservation significance living within the rugged gorges and tablelands, like the spotted-tailed quoll, the koala, the yellow-bellied glider, the long-nosed potoroo, the green and golden bell frog and the Blue Mountains water skink. Many would have perished in the inferno, unable to escape. The Grose is a very quiet and sterile place now, with only birds. But to the firefighters, these were not human lives or property.
.
Deafening silence from the ‘Firies’ naturally attractedcommunity enquiry and suspicion
.
The day after the firestorm that enveloped the Grose Valley, the wind subsided and from 20061123 through to the final mopping up date of 20061203, the 2006 Grose Bushfire and its many ember spotfires came under bushfire management control and were ultimately extinguished or else considered to be ‘benign‘.
It is important to note that during the entire bushfire event from 20061113 through to 20061203, only NSW Rural Fire Service ‘Major Fire Updates’ on its website and headline journalism appeared in the local Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper. Initially, the community, conservationists and ‘firies’ were respectfully passive. In the immediate aftermath of the fire from 20061204 through to the weekly issue of the Blue Mountains Gazette on 20061129, the local community, conservationists and ‘firies’ were letter silent in the paper. It was a combination of shock, preoccupation with the emergency and respectful anticipation of communication from the bushfire authorities.
One can assume here that given the scale of the tragedy, many in the Blue Mountains community were respectfully patient in anticipation of an assured announcement from Bushfire Management or some communication process. But none eventuated.
.
Injustice
.
The following weekly issue of the Gazette was published on 20061129, but no communication from Bushfire Management. Only dismissive bureaucratic statements came from Parks and Wildlife’s Regional Director Geoff Luscombe with a tone suggesting minimal damage and business-as-usual.
This was the article:
6th Dec: ‘Park managers take stock as smoke clears’
‘Hundreds of fire-fighters are celebrating a return to normality this week after cooler weather and an intense two-week campaign by volunteers and professionals brought a fire in the Grose Valley under control.
According to the Rural Fire Service this good weather, combined with a thorough mop-up operation and ongoing infra-red monitoring, means flare-ups are unlikely.However the 15,000 hectare burnt area – including the iconic Blue Gum Forest – is likely to remain closed for the “foreseeable future” due to safety concerns and regeneration.
Geoff Luscombe, regional manager of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), said the fact that only part of the Grose Valley burnt meant many animals had been able to seek refuge.
“Many of the Australian plants and animal species have learnt not only to survive fire but to exploit it,” he said. However he confirmed fears that the fire had burnt Blue Gum Forest – a Mecca for bushwalkers and conservationists in the heart of the Grose Valley.
“Blue gums aren’t a particularly fire-tolerant species,” he said. “Fire last burnt through Blue Gum in 1994. The effects of this fire we don’t know yet and we may not know for many months to come.”
A botanist has been sent to inspect the area and there could be ongoing monitoring.Mr Luscombe did not wish to comment on how the fire was handled due to a lengthy absence, but Inspector Jack Tolhurst from the Blue Mountains District Rural Fire Service has warded off any potential criticism.
“I think at the moment we should be looking at the positive,” said Inspector Tolhurst. “The fire is contained . . . It’s been a very long campaign but at the end of the day we haven’t lost any property or lives and half the Grose Valley at least remains intact.”
A fire that broke out near Zig-Zag Railway last week has also been contained. [Ed. According to inside reports, Zig Zag Railway Station was accidentally firebombed by an aerial helicopter attempting backburning].
“We’ve had a lot of help from a wide range of people. We’ve had wonderful support from the community . . . it was a wonderful effort from everyone.”
Meanwhile the hard work has only just begun for another group of dedicated volunteers.Blue Mountains WIRES are expecting to rescue a number of fire-affected native animals in coming months as they wander into residential areas for food and water.
“The arboreal animals – possums and gliders – they come to grief,” said chairperson Greg Keightly. “Birds suffer heat stress and smoke inhalation. They’re going to be flying around bewildered.”
He said residents who see native wildlife in urban areas should keep pets inside, provide water off the ground in a place safe from predators, and avoid the temptation to feed wildlife.
“Things come up for months after fires,” said Mr Keightley.“Do ring us (4754-2946) if you thing something is injured or doing it tough,” he said.
The national park south of the Great Western Highway, and the lookout at Govetts Leap, are open to visitors.For information on closures call 4787-8877 or visit www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au’
.
.
Mismanagement?
.
So the silence from the firies, from Bushfire Management and from the New South Wales Government ultimately responsible and accountable, was deafening. It was as if the entire Firie fraternity had gone to ground in a code of silence behind closed doors.
So naturally the community response was that something smelt fishy. This communication intransigence was a public relations blunder by Bushfire Management, to its detriment.
Then filtered out accounts of crazy operational mismanagement during the bushfire and of bush arson by the firies behind the roadblocks beyond the public gaze.
Rumours circulated that the initial ignition had been left for burn in the critical first few days of 13th November and 14th November up on Burra Korrain Ridge because it wasn’t right next to a road so that fire trucks could get to it. The fire had even been abandonned. Then the wind picked up and it spread. Airborne firefighting was not called in until a Section 44 incident declaration was effected on 15th November.
A second fire nearby to the west near Hartley Vale, purported also lit by dry lightning on 14th Nov, had attracted broadscale backburning from the Hartley Vale Road. But the backburn got out of control, ripped up the valley fanned by winds and crossed over the Darling Causeway on to the Blackheath Escarpment and the Upper Grose to join up with the first blaze. The onground evidence shows that this was a hazard reduction burn starting from alongside the Hartley Vale Road just east of the village of Hartley Vale.
Then came the account of senior bushfire management at the Rural Fire Service headquarters at Homebush ordering a ‘headburning’ a new 10km fire front along the south of the Bells Line of Road into the Grose Valley. Perhaps the NSW Government had stepped in demanding action. Perhaps RFS headquarters response was a series of overreactions, albeit too late and to be seen to be now ‘acting’ was only compounding the fire risk to the Grose . Apparently, the RFS Commissioner had even touted imposing a massive defacto hazard reduction north of the Bells Line of Road right though the vast wilderness of the Wollemi National Park, to somehow head off another fire on 20th November some 80km away north of Wiseman’s Ferry, but that strategy was rejected in a heated operational debate. [“The Wollemi National Park is part of the World Heritage Area and covers 488,620 hectares. Important values of the park include the spectacular wild and rugged scenery, its geological heritage values, its diversity of natural environments, the occurrence of many threatened or restricted native plant and animal species including the Wollemi pine and the broad-headed snake, significant plant communities, the presence of a range of important Aboriginal sites and the park’s historic places which are recognised for their regional and national significance.” – Wollemi NP Plan of Management, April 2001]
Even the Zig Zag tourist railway station was apparently accidently firebombed by an overzealous airborne firefighter starting backburning en mass
Then came the account of Blackheath residents who had their houses subjected to the risk of a deliberately lit backburn during the course of the bushfire. Despite the out of control wildfire being many miles to the north west of Blackheath, a broadscale backburn (some say is was really a ‘defacto hazard reduction‘) was lit along the fire trail below the electricity transmission line near Govetts Leap lookout. But it got out of control briefly and threatened to burn houses in Connaught Road. Indeed the entire Blackheath Escarpment fire from Hat Hill Road south through Govetts Leap Lookout and Ebans Head was started deliberately as a ‘strategic’ backburn.
Blackheath Escarpment completely burnt (top) for hectares, looking south from Hat Hill Road
(Photo by editor 20061209, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)
.
The rural property east of Hartley Vale where on 20070207 there was clear evidence of hazard reduction (HR)commencing only from the south side Hartley Vale Road, opposite.Eucalypts were burned only at the base, but further up the hill the tree crowns had been burned.The HR had quickly got out of control and then crossed over the Darling Causeway.
(Photo by editor 20070207, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)
.
Once two weeks had passed since the dramatic firestorm and with only silence emanating from Bushfire Management and the NSW Government, local people had had enough and they wanted answers.
Some 143 local yet disparate conservationists via ‘jungle drums’ met up, discussed the issue, united informally and agreed to go public. They informally formed the ‘Grose Fire Group‘ and contributed to a fighting fund some $1700 odd and became vocal. Two weeks after the Grose Valley Firestorm the Grose Fire Group managed a full page open letter in the local Blue Mountains Gazette on 20061206 on page 13. It was directed to the ultimate authority responsible and accountable for the Grose Fire Tragedy, the NSW Government. The Premier at the time was Labor’s Morris Iemma MP. The NSW Member for the NSW Seat of Blue Mountains as well as NSW Minister for Environment at the time was Bob Debus MP.
Those who valued the Blue Gum Forest challenged those responsible for its protection. The tragedy certainly stirred and polarised the Blue Mountains community. Conservationists naturally wanted answers, an enquiry, a review of bushfire prevention and management from:
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service under the direction of Regional Director Geoff Luscombe
NSW Rural Fire Service under the direction of Commissioner Phil Koperberg
Blue Mountains Bushfire Management Committee aligned with Blue Mountains City Council and chaired by Councillor Chris Van Der Kley.
.
‘Grose Valley Fire – World Heritage takes a hit’
“The Blue Gum Forest, birth-place of the modern conservation movement, was badly damaged by the Grose fire on Wednesday the 22nd of November. If this precious forest was a row of houses, then there would automatically be a major investigation into how the fire was fought. The fact that this major loss of our natural heritage is only now becoming known is testimony to the prevailing attitudes of those controlled the media spin during this recent fire event,” said Keith Muir director of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness.
“Until today the overall perception from the media was that this fire was a good one. No houses or lives lost”, Mr Muir said.
“There where no media updates on the struggle to save Blue Gum. No the reports of success in saving fire sensitive rare plants and rainforests along the escarpment edge. All the media reports spoke of bushland burnt; not on the success of any strategy to minimise the impact on the World Heritage listed national park, while saving lives and property”, he said.
“The Blue Mountains National Park Fire Management Strategy 2004 sets out all the necessary actions to protect the natural environment, as well as life and property. Yet for some reason it appears at this stage that the fire was not fought according to that agreed Strategy, as far as its provisions on natural heritage were concerned”, said Mr Muir.
“Increased fire is a major threat to World Heritage values of the Greater Blue Mountains national parks. Unless we develop and implement better strategies to defend the bush, as well as lives and property, then climate change will make this threat much worse,” Mr Muir said.
“The fire management strategies and techniques undertaken during the fire need to be re-examined to ensure the diversity of the Blue Mountains forests is protected into the future,” he said.
“Future fire management requires the feedback that only an inquiry into the Grose Valley Fire can achieve. Such an inquiry should not be taken as a criticism of those involved in fighting fire. It is an opportunity to ensure that everyone stays on fully board with future efforts to minimise fire damages,” Mr Muir said.’
What exacerbated the conflict was not some much that the bushfire had got out of control and had raged through the precious Grose Valley per se, but it was more the defensive, aloof reaction by ‘Firies’ which escalated into a barrage of defensive and vocal acrimony against any form of criticism of the firefighters.
In the face of such palatable denial by the Firies,of any accountability the initial shock and sadness within the local community within days quickly manifested into outrage and anger, and even to blame and accusations.
Most conservationists however felt a right to question and seek specific answers from Bushfire Management about the Grose Fires, for lessons to be learned, for fundamental changes to be made to bushfire management policy, bushfire fighting resourcing and practices, all simply so that such a tragedy should not be repeated.
But the key problem was that the ‘Firies‘ adopted an ‘in denial’ approach to a community suffering loss. Many Firies denied that they had done anything wrong and rejected any criticism by conservationists. Some Firies vented their anger in the local media attacking anyone who dared criticise. Clearly, Bushfiore Management’s debriefing and review of the bushfire in its immediate aftermath was poorly managed.
Underlying the conflict was the Firies urban fire fighting mandate to ‘protect lives and property” – that is human ones, not forests, not wildlife. Whereas what emerged with many in the Blue Mountains community was the implicit expectation that the World Heritage Area is an important natural asset to be protected, including from devastating bushfire.
The Grose Valley Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area
.
Hence, it was a conflict between differing cultural value systems. It was about recognition of the value of the natural assets of the Blue Gum Forest and the Grose Valley within the Bue Mountains National Park within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
The iconic Blue Gum Forest
(Acacia Flat, before the pyrocumulus firestorm of 22nd November 2006)
.
The iconic Blue Gum Forest
(The aftermath)
.
20 Sep: (2 months prior)…‘Fire crews prepare’
[Source: ‘Fire crews prepare’, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20060926]
.
‘With warmer days just around the corner and continuing dry weather the Blue Mountains Region National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) is again undertaking rigorous preparation for the coming fire season.
“Every year around this time the NPWS run a number of fire preparedness days to ensure staff and fire-fighting equipment are fully prepared for the season ahead,” said Minister for Environment Mr Bob Debus.
NSW Labor Minister for Environment Mr Bob Debus MP
.
“Fire preparedness days require fire-fighting staff to check their personal protective equipment, inspect fire-fighting pumps and vehicles and ensure that communication equipment and procedures are in place and working before the fire season begins.”
Mr Debus said a number of exercises, including four-wheel drive and tanker driving, first aid scenarios, entrapment and burnovers, were also employed to re-familiarise staff with all aspects of fighting fires.
“Burnovers, where fire-fighters are trapped in a vehicle as fire passes over it, is one of the worst case scenarios a fire-fighter can face so pre-season practice is critical to ensure that their response is second nature”, he said. “Local fire-fighters have also undergone stringent fitness assessments to make sure they are prepared for the physical demands of fire-fighting – like being winched from a helicopter into remote areas with heavy equipment, to work long hours under very hot and dry conditions wearing considerable layers of protective clothing”, Mr Debus explained.
Mr Debus said that fire preparedness and fitness assessment days worked in conjunction with a number of other initiatives as part of a year-long readiness campaign for the approaching summer.
“Over the past 12 months, NPWS officers have conducted more than 150 hazard reduction burns on national park land across NSW.”
.
“Nineteen hazard reduction burns have been conducted in the Blue Mountains region covering nmore than 4500 ha” ~Bob Debus MP
.
Mr Debus said that while fire-fighting authorities are preparing themselves to be as ready as possible for flare ups and major fires, home-owners in fire prone areas of teh Blue Mountains should also be readying themselves for the approaching season. “Now is the time to start cleaning gutters, ember proof houses and sheds, prepare fire breaks and clear grass and fuel away from structures”, he said.’
‘Residents in the historic Hawkesbury River village of St Albans prepared for the worst as raging bushfires neared. Their predicament came with a fresh fire outbreak in a remote corner of Wollemi National Park, 73 kilometres north of Windsor about 2pm. A Rural Fire Service spokesman said the blaze had destroyed 450 hectares by 3pm. It was being fanned by a string of north-westerly winds and had jumped Putty Road, causing its closure to traffic between Singeleton and Richmond. Winds of up to 80kmh forecast for the early hours of tomorrow are expected to drive the fire towards St Albans. About 45 Rural Fire Service volunteers with 10 tankers have been deployed to protect the small community as residents tried to safeguard their homes from floating embers. At least two helicopters were in the air to assist the operation.
Wildfire, spot fires and back burning across the Blackheath plateau
(Photo by Rural Fire Service)
.
Blue Mountains:
‘Meanwhile a spokesman for the RFS, Andrew Shade, told (the Sydney Morning Herald) firefighters were waiting to see if changing winds would affect the Blue Mountains fires, which jumped containment lines overnight. “The fire is across about 7000 hectares; we’ve got 18 aircraft working the fire, including two sky cranes, [and] 400 personnel at the fire on about 60 trucks.”
..Other fires continue to burn across the state, with a number of fires across 7000 hectares in the Hunter Valley burning in remote and inaccessible areas. Two other fires, near Forbes and Bathurst respectively, are both contained but the RFS has expressed concerns over the weather and its ability to cause a change in the nature of the the two blazes. Firefighters set up a containment line to protect the outskirts of Blackheath in the Blue Mountains.
Rural Fire Service Commissioner Phil Koperberg said today winds gusting up to 80kmh were predicted for about 3am tomorrow – a time when firefighting planes are unable to fly. At a news conference in Katoomba, Mr Koperberg described the present threat to Blue Mountain towns as “fairly serious … not grave”. However, he urged residents to clean fuel away from their homes as a precaution. This afternoon the most intense efforts were along a containment line at the northern end of Hat Hill Road at Anvil Rock. If that line was breached, the outskirts of Blackheath could be under threat, he said. Firefighters expected wind changes in the area between 4pm and 6pm today. The Bells Line of Road remains closed and the Blue Mountains National Park will remain closed until further notice.
The Great Western Highway and the Darling Causeway were open but drivers were advised to proceed with caution, with smoke likely to affect the roads. A total fire ban now applies in all but the north-east corner of the state as temperatures in the high 30s (Celsius), the strong winds and low humidity combine to produce potentially savage conditions…’
‘Thick smoke continues to drift across the Blue Mountains as the largest firefighting and backburning operation in the region since January 2003 enters its second week.
Hundreds of RFS volunteers, NSW Fire Brigades, SES and NPWS personnel, a number of remote firefighting units and 16 waterbombing aircraft are enlisted under a Section 44 declaration with a mission of containing and then attacking bushfires burning in the Grose Valley. The fires are believed to have been ignited by lightning on Monday, November 13 and at the time of going to press had burnt out 3800 hectares of bushland and private parkland in the valley below Blackheath, Mt Victoria, Bell and Mt Tomah.
No homes were under threat on Tuesday morning, but the RFS almost doubled its resources in the Blue Mountains on Monday night following unfavourable weather conditions.
The NSW FireBrigades also deployed extra fire engines and firefighters ot the Blue Mountains on Tuesday.
The large Blue Mountains bushfire broke its containment lines at Anvil Rock about 11 pm on Monday. Earlier, a comprehensive backburning operation involving 300 firefighters commenced on Saturday night between Blackheath and Mt Victoria to protect the townships if conditions worsened. A second phase began along Bells Line of Road between the Darling Causeway and Mt Tomah on Monday morning, continuing to Pierces Pass picnic area to the south.
The backburning activities can cause heavy smoke to linger in residential areas and residents are advised to close windows and doors. An emergency operations centre is active in Katoomba under the control of Local Emergency Operating Controller and Blue Mountains Police Local Area Commander Patrick Paroz, with the RFS as the lead combat agency.
Blue Mountains RFS community safety officer Eric Berry said remote area firefighting units will continue to attack the fire at the fringe and a fleet of 16 aircraft based in Medlow Bath airfield will operate to contain the fire.
“14 medium to heavy capacity helicopters have been operating 24/7 since last Tuesday [Ed: This contradicts the official RFS Section 44 Incident Controllers Report – Wednesday 15th not Tuesday 14th] and we now have three air crane helicopters on the job,” Inspector Eric Berry said. “This is a massive operation, certainly the biggest in the last three years. “It involves up to 300 RFS, NSW Fire Brigades, NPWS, police and SES personnel and volunteers at any one time, sourced from all over eastern NSW as well as every Blue Mountains RFS brigade. “Then there are the support services chipping in like the Salvation Army, who have been supplying breakfast at 5.30 am on a daily basis for the firefighters.”
Inspector Berry said RFS community information meetings last weekend were very successful in seven upper Mountains towns. “More than 200 residents attended one of the meetings held at Blackheath Golf Club, giving us an opportunity to explain what is going on in plain English. “More meetings may occur, but in the meantime residents should phone the RFS information line for updates. “We are getting nearly 6000 hits on our website per day and are updating the site at regular intervals.”
The Gazette visited the Medlow Bath Airfield last Friday, which continues to be a hive of activity. Six helicopters, including a giant sky crane chopper, took off and landed several times inside an hour, collecting water loads from nearby dams and dropping them into and ahead of the flames. Kev Adams, an RFS volunteer from Gloucester, described the conditions the pilots had to deal with early last week as wild.
“I came down from Gloucester last Wednesday and we went up in a chopper and the wind was blowing at about 41 knots. “We hit a pocket of turbulence and I hit my head on the ceiling even though I was strapped in, that’s how wild the wind was. “Hopefully we’ll be able to head home soon.”
Inspector Eric Berry said good progress has been made, but the weather ahead could test the containment lines.’
.
Ed: Additional reporting in the online version of this article:
‘Severe weather is expected for the Blue Mountains this afternoon between 2.00pm and 5.00pm. A Total Fire Ban has been declared for a number of areas across the state today, including the Blue Mountains. Temperatures in the Blue Mountains are expected to reach 31 degrees with west-north-west winds gusting up to 45km/h.
Fire behaviour yesterday was subdued due to mild conditions and the main front extinguishing in very low fuel levels. Advantage was taken of these conditions to consolidate containment lines. The fire has now been burning for fourteen days and burnt nearly 15,000 hectares.
The amount of smoke is likely to increase today. Aircraft and ground crews will be actively patrolling the fire for reactivation of fire edges. Infrared hot spot technology is being used in an attempt to identify stumps and roots that are still smouldering near the edges. Crews can then locate the hotspots and extinguish them.
The Bells Line of Road between the Darling Causeway and Mount Tomah has been re-opened but may be closed intermittently. Mount Banks and Pierces Pass trails and tracks are closed to the public. Residents in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury should remain vigilant.’
Volunteers back burn along Bells Line of Road as smoke from the fire front can be seen overhead
(Photo by Wade Laube)
.
‘A major bushfire burning out of control in the Blue Mountains again broke containment lines overnight ahead of forecast rugged day for fire fighters. Two separate blazes have blackened more than 8,000 hectares of the Blue Mountains, west of Sydney, with the larger of the two burning on a massive front about four kilometres north of the township of Blackheath.
Wind gusts of up to 70kph are forecast to push through that area, around Grose Valley, about 4am (AEDT) today. Blustery conditions expected for most of the day with temperatures in the low 30s (Celsius).
Rural Fire Service (RFS) Commissioner Phil Koperberg has said the towns of Mt Tomah and Mt Wilson would be vulnerable to a wind change. An RFS spokesman said crews had been working on a 35km containment line through the night but the bigger fire had now broken its eastern containment lines. He said crews were prepared for the “tricky” conditions expected early today, with wind gusts expected to pick up as the day gets warmer. Waterbombing aircraft cannot take off until first light but no property is currently under direct threat.
Meanwhile, a new bushfire burning in the Wiseman’s Ferry area is not posing any immediate threat to the village of St Albans, 90km north-west of Sydney. However, the RFS spokesman said that could also change depending on today’s winds. A total fire ban has been declared for much of the state today, including the Greater Sydney and Greater Hunter areas, the Illawarra and far south coast, southern and central ranges, the upper and lower central west plains and the eastern Riverina.’
.
23 Nov: “Massive fire back-burn effort’
[Source: ‘Massive fire back-burn effort’, Mx (free Sydney commuter newspaper), by Matt Sun, 20061123, page 1]
.
‘Hundreds of firefighters are today hoping a massive 30km containment line will stop the Blue Mountains bushfire in its tracks. [Ed: Bit late, this is the day after that pyrocumulus firestorm]
About 200 Rural Fire Service and NSW Fire Brigade firefighters worked overnight on a back-burn between Blackheath and Wentworth Falls. Firefighters were on standby until temperatures dropped and winds died. They were sent in to light the back-burn as soon as conditions calmed down. Crews spent this morning back burning on the Bells Line of Road and hoping to create containment lines near the village of (Mt) Tomah if winds subside.
The RFS said 400 firefighters started work on the blaze this morning. The weather bureau forecast a maximum temperature of 27C, 45kph gusting winds and 17% humidity this afternoon.
Two fires, both ignited by lightning 10 days ago, joined up this week and have now destroyed 14,500 ha. An RFS spokeswoman said the fire was burning 2.5 km south of Mt Tomah and 7km north of Wentworth Falls…Crews and 15 aircraft will remain on standby to extinguish any spot fires that pass over teh containment line. Fire-bombing helicopters Elvis and Shania were likely to be sent to other fires burning across NSW.
The RFS today said Blue Mountains townships were not in immediate danger but should remain alert. But experts warned the extreme weather conditions would return next week, with the mercury reaching the mid 30s.’
The above photo shot taken by the local Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper’s lead journalist, achieved front page on 20061129. The caption read: “Assessing the aftermath: Medlow Bath RFS crew member Noah Taylor and team leader Michael Anderson near Evans Lookout last Friday.”
This same photo was re-used by the Blue Mountains Gazette a year later on 20071024 (page 7) to support an article by the Rural Fire Service incident controller in charge of co-ordinating the fire-fighting of the 2006 Grose Fire, Mal Cronstedt, who responded to an article in the paper on this subject by The Habitat Advocate dated 20071010.
.
‘Hundreds of weary but determined firefighters are steadily gaining the upper hand over a Grose Valley bushfire that has burned about 15,000 hectares since November 13.
Daylight waterbombing by a fleet of choppers based at Medlow Bath airfield, increasing access by remote area firefighting units, successful backburns along the northern and southern escarpments and milder than predicted weather conditions since Saturday have limited the spread of the fire.
At the time of going to press, 130 RFS, NSW Fire Brigades and NPWS firefighters and nine helicopters were conducting backburns, mopping up buffer zones and cutting in access trails to the fire’s fringes. The active front of the fire was within containment lines yesterday morning, allowing the Bells Line of Road and Mt Tomah Botanical Gardens to re-open.
A small fire that started at Mitchells Lookout in Mt Victoria on November 23 is extinguished and investigations are continuing into its cause.
Blue Mountains RFS is warning residents to remain vigilant by continuing to prepare their homes for fire if conditions worsen and to immediately report any suspicious activity to CrimeStoppers by calling 1800-333-000.
The milder conditions are a welcome relief from the heat and 100 km/h wind gusts that put residents of Hazelbrook, Linden, Faulconbridge and Winmalee on high alert last Wednesday afternoon.
An explosion within the fire, which witnesses described as causing a mushroom-like cloud to develop, ignited spotfires four kilometres north of Lake Woodford and five kilometres north of Hazelbrook. Many residents headed home early from work to clear gutters and roofs and two Winmalee schools opted to close for 24 hours as a precaution. Eighteen water-bombing aircraft attacked the spotfires, extinguishing one within hours and the second by Thursday evening.
For daily fire updates and advice, go to www.bluemountains.rfs.nsw.gov.au, phone a dedicated 24-hour hotline manned by local volunteers on 1800-264-525 or visit your local RFS station, staffed by volunteer station officers.
“These people are the unsung heroes of the RFS,” Blue Mountains RFS public liaison and education officer Paul McGrath said.
.
Overwhelming grief shunned by government hush, galvanised an immense sense of environmental injustice :
It was time to challenge (with due civility) the unaccountable bastards in authority…the NSW Government:
An extract of a full page letter in the Blue Mountains Gazette 20061206 on page 13 It was commissioned by 143 concerned Blue Mountains residentsIt was addressed not to the ‘firies’, but to the NSW Government.
.
Pulpit Rock on the left of the Grose Valley, before the firestorm
It is easy to see why the Blue Mountains, with their Eucalytus tree oil suspended in the atmosphere, get their famous name.
(Photo by Chris Ellis)
Bushcare Rehabilitation Site on a tributary of Katoomba Falls Creek
The Gully, Katoomba, Blue Mountains
This was allegedly ripped up by Blue Mountains Council to accommodate a marathon.
(click photo to enlarge)
.
‘The Gully‘ situated in the upper central Blue Mountains of New South Wales (NSW) is a natural creek valley surrounded by the township development of Katoomba, within a corridor and upstream of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
This valley has a disgraceful history of forced eviction of Aboriginal people from their traditional tribal lands by Blue Mountains Council in 1957, of environmental devastation to build a race track in the 1960s, of associated deforestation and commercial tourism exploitation, followed after the racetrack’s rundown and loan default, by many years of ecological neglect.
More recently, despite the efforts of members of the local community to rehabilitate degraded areas and eroded watercourses, a new threat has emerged – ‘Adventure Tourism‘.
Back in 2008, two separate organisations – AROC Sport Pty Ltd and The Wilderness Society NSW (an organisation which should know better) decided to launch respective marathons each through the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. They each proposed their respective marathon events with the government custodian of the World Heritage Area, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and since both marathon courses also involved running through community land, they also approached the custodian, Blue Mountains (city) Council.
AROC Sport Pty Ltd proposed its Ultra Marathon with UK outdoor gear sponsor The North Face which it termed ‘2008 North Face 100‘ marathon – a 10okm individual marathon along walking tracks through the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area including through the magnificent Jamison Valley. The Wilderness Society NSW proposed a similar marathon termed ‘Wild Endurance 100 Blue Mountains‘, also a 100km team-based marathon along walking tracks through the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area including the Jamison Valley. Both events were publicised as being one off events, but have since become annual events attracting hundreds of competitors and spectators.
In January 2008, The Habitat Advocate learned that these two events had already been approved by the Regional Director of NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS NSW), Geoff Luscombe, without apparently any consultation either with the Blue Mountains community nor with any conservation groups that have for many decades had a close association with the Blue Mountains and its conservation. [BMNP POM: “A Neighbour Relations Strategy will be developed to raise awareness about the park’s significant natural and cultural values, inform park neighbours about park management programs and encourage appropriate behaviour to minimise impacts on the park. Within the City of Blue Mountains, “neighbours” will include the whole community.”]
On 20080130, The Habitat Advocate wrote to the Blue Mountains (city) Council’s then Acting Bushland Management Project Officer, Ms Arienne Murphy, explaining our concern:
“The degree of environmental protection and safeguards for these affected natural areas that Council may be imposing upon the respective event organisers, and the trend of adventure tourism and elite sporting events using natural areas of high conservation value is one that warrants appropriate environmental safeguards, monitoring and a transparent decision making process.”
.
The Habitat Advocate requested from Blue Mountains (city) Council:
A copy of the user requirements including any standard terms and conditions that Council issues to (1) casual recreational license holders and (2) ongoing recreational license holders of Council-managed/controlled natural areas in the Blue Mountains Local Government Area.
A copy of the specific operating terms and conditions relating to the proposed Northface 100 and Wild Endurance marathon events both due to take place around Nellies Glen and through the Jamison Valley wilderness in May 2008.
.
The correspondence was ignored by Council and no information was received from Council.
At the time, The Habitat Advocate also raised similar concerns about the risks of damaging ecological impacts and of the unsuitability of these two events through the World Heritage Area with interested representatives of conservation groups – The Colong Foundation for Wilderness, the Blue Mountains Conservation Society, the National Parks Association of NSW, and the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.
Issues raised included:
To examine and improve the rule that regulate these events
To identify the location of high conservation value natural communities that the routes of each event propose to pass through
How the responsible custodian (NPWS NSW) proposes to ensure these communities are not adversely impacted
To protect and defend the important natural values of the Blue Mountains and the rare and threatened habitat of its flora and fauna.
The hold the NPWS NSW as custodian of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area to account under the Blue Mountains National Park Plan of Management (May 2001) [BMNP POM]and in accordance with its mottos of ‘tread lightly’ and ‘take only photos and leave only footprints’.
Ensure protection of wilderness values and adherence to a wilderness code of conduct to ensure “minimal impact codes or practices for potentially high impact activities including cycling, horse riding, adventure activities and vehicle touring” [BMNP POM, p.52]
.
A meeting was held at the office of the Colong Fondation in Sydney on Wednesday 20080206 between The Habitat Advocate, the above conservation groups and with Geoff Luscombe as well as with The Wilderness Society. The above concerns were raised with Mr Luscombe and he politely gave assurances that both events would not cause damage to ecology. The key document that would guide the conduct of the events and protect the ecology was the then ‘Interim Policy for Commercial Recreational Activities in National Parks of the Blue Mountains Region‘ (dated 20070926), by the then umbrella department of NSPW NSW, The Department of Environment and Climate Change.
However, no specific recognition, rules or guidelines were made to allow for commercial marathons involving large numver of participants and spectators within either the Interim Policy for Commercial Recreational Activities in National Parks of the Blue Mountains Region nor within the Blue Mountains National Park Plan of Management.
Indeed the Interim Policy includes clauses that run counter the large scale of two such commecvial marathons as per the following extract clauses:
.
‘Environmental Protection’:
.
Clause 5.1.11: “Commercial activities will not be permitted to lead to permanent or unsustainable impacts on the resource or become a significant proportion of visitor impact on a site or area.”
.
Slashed vegetation for the marathon through The Gully’s swamp, KatoombaBut what is the impact is occurring upon flora deep in the Jamison Valley Wilderness?Who monitors the marathons? Who is the watchdog over the custodian?
.
Clause 5.1.13 “The current Minimal Impact Bushwalking Code (Australian Alps National Parks) should be used by operators/guides as a minimum code of behaviour for all activities.”
.
[Ed. But under NPWS NSW Activity Agreement with AROC Sport, AROC Sport needs only..”Use best endeavours to ensure that participants adhere to the approved route on recognised and approved fire trails and walking tracks within the Park and do not deviate from these trails and tracks at any time.”]
.
Clause 5.1.14 “No modification to the environment, permanent or temporary, will be permitted (eg. fixtures or temporary caches) without specific Department approval.”
[Ed. So where is the NPWS NSW monitoring of compliance, or lack thereof?]
.
Cliff Walk slashed along the top of the Blue Mountains Western Escarpment to accommodate the North Face 100 marathon in 2008
(Photo by Editor 20080517)
.
North Face 100 participant runs through a Gully Bushcare Site, previously fenced off and sign posted
This riparian area was disturbed by Sydney Water in 2007 during its Sewer Amplification Project.
The site was subsequently rehabilitated with native plants by Networks Alliance in co-operation with local coucil and the local buschare group.
.
‘Recreation Management’:
.
Clause 5.1.21 “Commercial activities can only form a minor component of total use and not lead to the domination of a particular setting, site, route or activity, or unreasonably restrict or exclude the recreational opportunity of other users.”
Runners take right of way over bushwalkersWhat happens when the marathons are required to stay together in teams?
.
Clause 5.1.22 “Acceptable levels of use, in relation to the conservation and protection of the environment, will be based on precautionary principles determined by the Department and this process may not maximise commercial opportunities.”
Northface100 competitors – 1000 registered entrants an “acceptable level of use”?
.
‘Appropriate Activities’:
.
Clause 5.1.25 “Activities resulting in minimal impact will be preferred over those causing greater impact (eg. track walking versus off-track walking).” [Ed. No mention here about commercial marathons involving hundreds of participants]
Does my team have to stick together over the entire length of the trail? Wild Endurance: Yes. It is compulsory for the whole team to stay together the whole time. The team must arrive together and depart from each Checkpoint and also cross the finish line together. Of course if you are in the Relay event, then only half the team needs to arrive at each checkpoint and cross the finish line together.
.
.
Clause 5.1.27 “Where impacts associated with activities are high and sites are deemed suitable for recreational purposes, sites may be managed by the Department to provide for intensive use.” [Ed. No mention was made by Luscombe about any monitoring and enforcement by NPWS NSW]
.
Revisiting the Blue Mountains National Park Plan of Management:
.
The Service will continue to develop its Discovery interpretive program, including investigation of options for improving the quality, quantity and geographic spread of activities offered
The emphasis will continue to be on environmental interpretation and education and away from hard adventure.
Recreation Opportunities: Use by domestic and international tourists is largely day use concentrated on the scenic escarpment areas of the Jamison and Grose valleys, from Wentworth Falls to Katoomba and at Blackheath, although other relatively easily accessible areas are popular for adventure ecotourism (see section 4.3.8 Guided Tours and Commercial
Recreation).
With tourism in the Blue Mountains region projected to increase strongly over the next five years, the need to minimise the impacts of tourism on the natural environment is a growing concern.
Recreation use of the park includes a wide range of activities and is distributed throughout the park…Use is distributed throughout the year, with peaks during school holiday periods and long weekends.
The park is under increasing pressure from the growing number of park visitors, with some popular bushwalking and camping areas such as the Grose Valley, Wollangambe
area, the Wild Dog Mountains, Burralow Creek, Erskine Creek, Glenbrook Creek, Ingar and Murphys Glen showing signs of unacceptable environmental impacts.
Adventure activities such as canyoning, abseiling and rockclimbing have increased dramatically in 56 popularity, with visitation to one popular canyon having doubled over a two year period. These activities are associated with a proliferation of informal foot tracks which are eroding with increasing use. Vegetation is being denuded at popular abseiling and/or rockclimbing access points and public safety is an issue at some sites, particularly where there is conflict with other users.
Major management considerations include the need to raise awareness of visitor impacts, to monitor visitor use and, where necessary, to regulate visitor numbers to
protect the park environment, ensure visitor safety and maintain recreation experiences appropriate to a natural or wilderness setting.
Regulation of large groups, commercial activities and adventure activities needs to be considered in relation to both environmental impacts and public safety. Use of the park
by larger groups has the greatest potential to impact on the park. User conflicts, risks of accidents and injuries and impacts on natural and cultural heritage values all rise in
proportion to the size of the group.
The existing facilities have been developed over a period of more than a hundred years and are not necessarily compatible with existing design, safety and maintenance standards, may be having an unacceptable environmental impact and/or are inadequate to satisfy existing or projected recreation and tourism demand and patterns of use.
A major review of existing facilities is required and clearer priorities for maintenance and
upgrading of facilities or removal need to be developed to ensure that conservation and
recreation objectives can both be met in a management environment of limited
resources.
Natural areas: Recreation tends to be more dispersed and any facilities provided are relatively low-key compared to the developed areas, catering for a lower level of use.
Wilderness areas: This setting provides opportunities for solitude and self-reliant recreation.
Competitive activities including rogaining and orienteering will not be permitted in wilderness areas.
“The nominated area has a complicated border, defined partly by adjoining privately owned lands which, in the Blue Mountains Park section, also divides it into northern and southern sections along the corridor of the Great Western Highway. The heart of each Park is reserved as wilderness which totals 54% of the nominated area. ”
[Source: ‘Greater Blue Mountains (world heritage) Area’, United Nations Environment Programme, World ConbservationMonitoring Centre ].
The ‘Wild Endurance’ course map passes through the Jamison Valley Wilderness
.
. ‘NorthFace 100’ marathon course map passes through the Jamison Valley Wilderness
“Saturday 19th May 2012: The 5th Annual North Face 100 will begin at Leura’s Fairmont Resort in the Blue Mountains Australia.
Some 900 runners will embark on a 100km trail race which will take them through Jamison Valley, Narrowneck Plateau, Megalong Valley…”
.
Ed: Is this what custodianship of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area has become – all about maximising visitation over conservation?
Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor)commonly called ‘fairy penguins‘ due to their small fairy-like sizeArrive ashore after feeding on ‘pelagic’ fish in Bass Strait in southern Australia
‘Little Penguins‘, marine birds native to Australia and New Zealand, every day consume about their body weight (~1.2kg). Their prime food sources are small marine pelagic fish (76%) and squid (24%). [Source: ^http://www.graniteisland.com.au/pdf/parks_pdfs_little_penguins.pdf]
Given that the Australian breeding population across coastal southern Australia is estimated to be up to 500,000 individuals (Ross et al.1995), the Australian Little Penguin’s annual dependency on marine pelagic fish would amass over 450,000 kgs. (Calculation: 500,000 penguins * 1.2kg each * 76% = 456,000 kg of pelagic fish).
Their numbers are healthy but how vulnerable are they to pelagic overfishing?
.
Australia’s industrial exploitation of Nature
.
“Australia has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. The destruction and fragmentation of habitat, particularly as a result of clearance of vegetation for agriculture, and the impact of feral animals and invasive weeds has had a substantial impact on our biodiversity.
Altogether, 18 mammal species have become extinct since the arrival of European settlers a little more than 200 years ago. Twenty percent of our remaining mammal species are threatened with extinction.”
Australia’s states of Tasmania and Queensland, with their renowned parochial politics, hold Australia’s unenviable reputation for the worst industrial exploitation of Nature and ecological destruction.
In Queensland the extent of recent land clearing is more than 425 000 hectares per year. Between September 2001 and August 2003, approximately 1 051 000 hectares of
woody vegetation was cleared (Government of Queensland, 2005). If Queensland were a country, it would rank 9th worst in the world in terms of land clearing. [^CSIRO]
In Tasmania, less than 20% of the original rainforest is left, and the ancient Styx Valley is being clearfelled and incinerated by Forestry Tasmania for loss-making woodchips at the rate of 300 to 600 hectares a year. [^The Wilderness Society] Many wild river valleys have been flooded by damned hydro, and vast landscapes scarred by mining and the groundwater toxins and tannins they leave behind. Industrial scale ecological destruction on an industrial scale still continues with parochial government’s short term profit myopia.
Tasmanian politics has a prejudiced record of giving industrialists free reign to plunder the environment, branded ‘primary industry‘:
.
Tasmania’s ‘Primary Industry’ legacy
.
Since 1803 when the whaling ship Albion took three whales at Great Oyster Bay, colonists started a whaling and fur seal industry based on the Derwent River as well as on Bruny Island and up the east coast of Tasmania to Spring Bay (Triabunna) and Bicheno
Convict slave labour from 1803 on the Derwent River was put to work deforesting the surrounding countryside
Convict ‘Piners’ from 1819 who ransacked the extremely rare (endemic) Huon Pine from forests near Macquarie Harbour
Since 1895, damming of rivers for hydro power and the flooding of many rivers and notably Lake Pedder in 1972 under the Great Lake Scheme, when the Hydro-Electric Commission became an industrial power unto its own from 1929 through to 1998
Mining since 1820 for coal, tin, copper, gold, lead, zinc, silver and nickel – leaving scarred moonscapes around Mount Lyell, Zeehan, Savage River, Mount Bischoff, along the Ringarooma Valley, Fingal Valley, Beaconsfield and elsewhere.
Since 1916, the construction of industrial and polluting smelters such as Amalgamated Zinc Company, then in 1921 the Nyrstar Hobart Smelter on the Derwent River, and since 1955 the Bell Bay aluminium smelter on the Tamar River
The industrial deforestation of Tasmanian forests since convict times, accelerating with the advent of steam and rail from the 1850s. By 1996, 43% of Tasmania’s original wet
Eucalyptus forest had been logged and still 64.5% remain open for logging including Eucalyptus regnans —the world’s tallest hardwood trees, many of which are over 400 years old. [Rainforest Action Network, p.8]
The recent establishment of industrial pulp and timber producer Ta Ann south of Hobart and the current proposed Gunns’ pulp mill which collectively threaten to woodchip most of Tasmania’s remaining unprotected native forests. The approval process has been plagued by political abuse of due process and special deals for Gunns, lacking independent scrutiny or community support.
Map of 19th Century whaling bases on Tasmania’s coastline
Spring Bay was part of that exploitative legacy
.
So what has this disgraceful legacy got to do with Little Penguins arriving ashore after feeding on pelagic fish in Bass Strait?
Tasmanian-based industrial fishing corporation, SeaFish Tasmania, is set to double its annual fishing catch of pelagic marine fish in Bass Strait from August 2012 from 5,000 tonnes to 10,600 tonnes. The problem is that such a massive quota risks jeopardising the sustainability of the fish populations and the dependent marine species that depend upon them.
Pelagic marine fish live near the surface of the water and range in size from small coastal forage fish like small herrings and sardines to large apex predator oceanic fishes like Southern Bluefin Tuna and oceanic sharks. Also feeding on pelagic fish are Little Penguins and Australia Fur Seals. Pelagic fish habitat stretches from inshore waters to offshore over the Australian Continental Shelf and variable continental slope waters at depths from the surface down to about 500 metres.
Pelagic Pacific Jack Mackerel swim in schools near the sea surface
.
Since 2000 Seafish Tasmania, based on Tasmania’s east coast at Spring Bay (Triabunna), has been the dominant Tasmanian fishing corporation targeting the Small Pelagics Fishery in southern Australian waters.
To date, Seafish Tasmania has relied upon its own purse seine trawler, the 800 tonne ‘Ellidi’ as well as two smaller contract vessels, to trawl for pelagic fish on the Continental Shelf off Tasmania. At its Triabunna factory, Seafish Tasmania converts its pelagic fish catches into a range of frozen seafood products for human consumption.both for domestic and export markets.
Seafish Tasmania also produces frozen Redbait specifically for the commercial Long-Line Fishing industry in Indonesia, the Pacific and Indian oceans.
Long Line Fishing is indiscriminate
.
But Long line Fishing is cruel and indiscriminate. It is criticized worldwide for the merciless death of species such as sharks, turtles and seabirds, all caught unwanted as by-catch.
Trapped Humpback whale Caught in a Long Line Fishing net off Tonga in the Pacific in 2009
This heart-breaking image shows the desperate plight of a whale trapped by equipment used in a controversial form of commercial fishing. The southern-hemisphere humpback became entangled in a long line and was spotted by a snorkeller last week fighting for her life.
Long lines, sometimes covering several miles, are left floating out in deep waters and have baited hooks placed on them every few metres. The fishing method has drawn criticism from conservation groups because they indiscriminately hook unwanted catches such as passing turtles, sharks and whales. Sadly for this female, she got snared near the Tongan island of Vava’u. Despite breaking free, she was left wrapped up in the line with several of the hooks imbedded in her flesh.
The Marine Stewardship Council (has) allowed two eco-certifications for the use of longlines for swordfish fishing that will effect sea turtles and sharks drastically. For every swordfish caught, two sharks are killed. Every year 1,200 endangered sea turtles are hooked by longlines, resulting in drowning.
Seafish Tasmania’s involvement in GM aquaculture raises similar concerns about its ecological ethics.
.
Australia’s southern ‘Small Pelagic Fishery‘
.
Seafish Tasmania targets the following pelagic marine fish species in Australia’s southern Small Pelagic Fishery– Eastern sub-area for its chosen seafood markets:
Jack Mackerel
Blue Mackerel
Redbait
.
However, this Small Pelagic Fishery (including eastern Bass Strait) provides a marine habitat to many diverse species of pelagic fish, which raises the question of the impact of non-targeted fish being caught as unwanted ‘bycatch‘?
Bass Strait lies between the Victorian coastline and the island of Tasmania, and the targeted Small Pelagics Fishery stretches eastward into the Tasman Sea. Its pelagic marine fish typically comprise Pilchards, Barracuda, Common Jack Mackerel (Trachurus declivis), Blue Mackerel (Scomber australasicus), Redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus), and Yellowtail Scad (Trachurus novaezelandiae). These attracts larger predators such as shark species preferring shallower depths such as Mako Sharks (Isurus oxyrinchus), Blue Sharks (Prionace glauca) and the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) which is listed by CITES as a protected species and similarly classified by the IUCN has having a ‘Vulnerable‘ status’.
But back in 1995, the marine health of Bass Strait was put into question when a 20-nautical-mile slick of dead pilchards was discovered off Devonport. The slick was thought to be caused by a mysterious deadly virus or toxin.
Tens of millions of pilchards were found floating dead in waters from Western Australia to Victoria. A merchant seaman had said that his cargo ship had sailed through 20 nautical miles of dead pilchards in Bass Strait. Mr Hamish Macadie, first mate on the Searoad Mersey, said he saw the fish about six nautical miles from the Devonport coast..
“They were floating on the water and were really thick in some areas. We sailed through about 20 miles of dead pilcards“, Mr Macadie said.
Australia’s coastal small pelagic fishes, which are often surface-schooling, includes several families which are often each represented by several species (see Allen 1997, Randall et al. 1997, Gomon et al. 2008), including the Clupeidae (sardines, herrings and sprats), Engraulidae (anchovies), Carangidae (scads, jack mackerel), Scombridae (short mackerels), Atherinidae (hardyheads, silversides), Arripidae (Australian herring) and Emelichthidae (redbait). [‘Pelagic Fishes and Sharks‘ by Hobday, Griffiths,Ward 2009 : 4]. Other fish species of Bass Strait include Majo Sharks, Gummy Sharks, Threshers, Yellowtail Kingfish and Snapper.
The Small Pelagic Fishery of the Eastern sub-area…’is just the beginning’ But Seafish Australia’s utilisation of a factory trawler won’t be limited to just 10,600 tonnes of pelagic fish p.a. It has in its sights the entire Small Pelagic Fishery across to Perth.This will deplete the fish stocks of the protected Great White Shark, so lookout surfers at Ceduna!!
[Source: ^http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/fisheries-a-to-z-index/small-pelagic-fishery/maps/]
.
Commonwealth Marine Reserves – Flinders and Freycinet Sanctuary Zones
.
The Small Pelagic Fishery set by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority ignores the marine ecologiccal values of the two delineated Sanctuary Zones of Australia’s South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network. This includes the Flinders Commonwealth Marine Reserve and the Freycinet Commonwealth Marine Reserve (See green-shaded areas below).
Yet the Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s (AFMA) map invades two IUCN Sanctuary Zonesi.e. thetop two green shaded areas ‘Flinders’ and ‘Freycinet’
.
This South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network has been designed to contribute to the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA). The aim of NRSMPA continues to be to protect and conserve important habitats which represent all of Australia’s major ecological regions and the communities of marine plants and animals they contain.
Both the Flinders and Freycinet Commonwealth Marine Reserves were nationally proclaimed in 2007
March 2012: Tasmania’s parochialism again?
.
In Tasmania, when it comes to industrial exploitation, the old parochial adage still prevails – ‘it’s not what you know, but who you know‘.
Director of Seafish Tasmania, Gerry Geen, is:
“Advisor to Australia and international governments on fisheries management and fisheries economics.”
The fishing quota limits (Total Allowable Catch) for this Small Pelagic Fishery are periodically assessed and determined by the committee of Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), which takes advice specifically from the South East Management Advisory Committee (MAC). The fishing quota for this Small Pelagic Fishery for 2012-13 was agreed at a recent teleconference by the South East MAC on 26 March 2012, based upon the advise from the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) Resource Assessment Group (RAG).
Of note, two out of the ten members of the SPF RAG have pecuniary interests specifically in this Small Pelagic Fishery. Denis Brown has commercial fishing permits including in SPF zones A, B, C, and D and controls a Pelagic Fish Processors plant at Eden on the New South Wales south coast. While director of Seafish Tasmania, Gerry Geen, holds a Zone A purse-seine SPF Permit, four Tasmanian purse-seine Jack Mackerel Permits, a Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Trawl Boat SFR permits.
The reported minutes of the South East MAC on 26 March 2012 teleconference included Total Allocable Catch Declarations as follows:
.
Recommended Total Allowable Catches for Blue Mackerel, Redbait and Yellowtail Scad for 2012/13 in the Eastern Zone
~ by the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) Resource Assessment Group (RAG)
Total Allowable Catch Recommendation #1:
“Blue Mackerel 2,600 (Tier 2)
Redbait 6,900 (Tier 1)
Australian Sardine 200 (Tier 2)”
.
Total Allowable Catch Recommendation #3:
“Increase the Jack Mackerel (east) Recommended Biological Catches (RBC) from 5,000 tonnes to 10,600 tonnes, subject to conditional support from the RAG’s conservation member and the RAG’s recreational member.”
June 2012: Factory Freezer Vessel (FV Magiris) chartered by Seafish Tasmania
10,000 tonne Lithuanian-owned Factory Fishing Vessel ‘FV Margiris’ Recently contracted by Seafish Tasmania to trawl the Small Pelagic Fishery off Tasmania’s north east coastIts draft of 5.5 metres is too deep for Spring Bay, so it must be operated out of Devonport
[Source: ^http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1220863]
.
‘Super trawler operator Seafish Tasmania yesterday indicated it had begun the process of having the Lithuanian vessel Margiris registered as Australian.
Director Gerry Geen said the company aimed to start fishing in Australian waters (the Small Pelagic Fishery) by August 2012…
The company has been granted an 18,000 tonne annual quota. Greens Leader Nick McKim told parliament the increase had been allowed because of the super trawler, Margiris.
“The Commonwealth quota for jack mackeral will be doubled” he said. “Now this makes a mockery of claims that it is science underpinning these decisions because, of course, the doubling has only occurred because this super trawler has applied to come down and work in Australian Commonwealth waters.”
Vast swathe … the Margiris supertrawler. Photo: Greenpeace
.
‘Say hello to our fishing future. It’s called Margiris. If ever Australians needed convincing that the global appetite for fish is our problem too, this supertrawler is it. Twice the size of the previous largest vessel ever to fish our Commonwealth waters, it measures 142 metres in length and weighs 9,600 tonnes. Its Dutch owners are changing its flag of registration from Lithuanian to Australian.
By August, it is scheduled to be roaming between the Tasman Sea and Western Australia in pursuit of 17,500 tonnes a year of small pelagic fish.
Tagged … Greenpeace activists write on the side of the Margiris in the Atlantic off Mauritania in 2011
(Photo by Greenpeace, March 2011)
.
But it’s not simply the size of FV Margiris that brings home the issue of rising industrial pressure on fish stocks. It’s the stark story of seafood market forces. Last March, in the Atlantic off Mauritania, Greenpeace activists wrote “plunder” on the side of the Margiris. They are campaigning against European operators who are taking West Africa’s fish, leaving locals catchless.
In Australia, the Margiris is set to catch the same sort of fish – jack mackerel, blue mackerel and redbait – and freeze them into blocks for export.
The destination of the catch? “The large majority will go to West Africa for human consumption, as frozen whole fish,” said Seafish Tasmania director Gerry Geen.
Australian fishers have long sought to exploit the country’s so-called “small pelagics”, which are prey for bigger fish such as tuna and marlin. Seafish Tasmania is partnering with ship owners Parlevliet & Van der Plas to do this on a scale previously unseen.
Alarms have been raised in other global fisheries about these mainly Europe-based small-pelagic hunters.
.
According to The New York Times, stocks of Jack Mackerel have dropped from an estimated 30 million metric tons to less than a tenth of that amount in just two decades.
.
The minutes of an Australian Fisheries Management Authority advisory committee show serious debate about the introduction of the Margiris. They reveal that Mr Geen, who was on the committee, gave “background” input. But because of his conflict of interest, he did not contribute to a recommendation to double the Australian eastern jack mackerel catch to 10,000 tonnes.
This has given the single greatest fillip to the Margiris venture. Mr Geen told the National Times the Margiris would take less than 5% of the total stock of small pelagics, as measured by surveys of egg production by the target species.
“I think people are worried about the size of the vessel, but that is really irrelevant,” he said. “It’s the size of the total allowable catch that counts.”
Other advisory committee members pointed to the ecological impact on existing fishers of taking so much of the small pelagics, even though these catches are outside state waters.
A coalition of global, national and state environment groups has written to Fisheries Minister Joe Ludwig, calling for the Margiris to be banned.
Right now it’s moored in the Netherlands, and Greenpeace is keeping an eye on its movements. Watch this space.’
.
..didn’t have to wait long..
Greenpeace in The Netherlands: ‘Stop Exporting Overcapacity’
.
On 28th June 2012, Greenpeace activists in the Netherlands attached themselves to the mooring ropes and chained the ship’s propellers of the super trawler FV Margiris, to delay its journey to Australia to serve Seafish Tasmania’s plans to overfish 18,000 toinnes of pelagic fish.
Greenpeace spokesman Nathanial Pelle said:
“Really this is to demonstrate that the European Commission, which has committed to reducing its capacity, shouldn’t be allowed to ship its oversized fleet off to other fisheries around the world and that goes for Australia as well.”
“The MAC noted some concerns raised in relation to the proposed TAC for jack mackerel (east) suggested that a super trawler might also have differential impacts on the stock and ecosystem.”
~ South East Management Advisory Committee (MAC) Chairman Steve McCormack noted.
.
Of Course the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) celebrated Seafish Australia’s strategy as “A Shot In The Arm For Tassie Economy” , given that the MUA is only narrowly self-interested in its members. MUA Assistant National Secretary, Ian Bray, said the news of new jobs was welcome.
“This initiative is welcome news for Tasmania’s seafarers and maritime workers”, Mr Bray said. “This is just the kind of development the Tasmanian economy needs. We’re pleased that there will be new jobs for Tasmanians”, Mr Hill said.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman has written to me outlining his findings in response to my complaint that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) erred when setting the quota relevant to the super trawler Margiris.
The Ombudsman found that AFMA did not follow the law when the South East Management Advisory Committee finalised its recommendation for the quota relevant to the super trawler.
In particular the Ombudsman found that one of the members of that committee had a financial conflict of interest but was allowed to remain in, and contribute to, discussions about the quota.
As a direct result of the Ombudsman’s investigation AFMA has undertaken remedial and corrective steps to address the substantive issues arising from my complaint.
The Ombudsman has also forwarded material to the Federal Government’s review of fisheries legislation.
Seafish Tasmania has responded by attacking the Ombudsman which is clearly a case of attacking the messenger who found very serious problems with fisheries management in Australia.
Seafish claims the Ombudsman “had completed the investigation and found nothing to report’’. In fact the Ombudsman’s letter to me of 18 December 2012 outlining the results of the inquiry runs to four pages and includes the findings “processes relating to a scheduled meeting of the South East Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC) on 26 March 2012 were not in accordance with legislative requirement’’ and that the “conflicted SPFRAG [Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group] members did not seek approval to remain at, and participate in, group deliberations after declaring the conflict [of interest]’’.
In other words my complaint to the Ombudsman that AFMA did not follow proper process when it set the quota relevant to the Margiris has been upheld.
Seafish claims I didn’t release the letter because it didn’t suit my “agenda’’. In fact I decided not to release the letter during the Christmas/New Year holiday period because it was simply too important a document to bury during the holiday period and subsequent bushfire emergency. Moreover I did hand the letter to the Mercury newspaper this morning, well before Seafish issued its media release.
Seafish notes the Ombudsman’s report (which it claims to have not seen) offers no comment on Director Gerry Geen or Seafish itself. But in fact Mr Geen is well known as being the relevant member of SEMAC and SPFRAG.
Seafish claims my comments last year about the Ombudsman investigating “other matters’’ was some kind of beat up. But in fact it was the Ombudsman who
referred to other matters being under investigation and the Ombudsman’s letter to me does in fact address other issues, and in particular the conflict of interest and communications difficulties associated with the SPFRAG.
Seafish Tasmania claims there is now no question mark over the quota relevant to the Margiris. But in fact all the Ombudsman says is that “it does not necessarily follow that errors in the SEMAC process operate to invalidate the TAC [Total Allowable Catch]’’ and goes on to note the review of fisheries legislation which is still ongoing.
That there were at least very serious problems within AFMA is beyond question for all, it seems, other than Seafish Tasmania. The Federal Government has already identified the need for a roots and branch review of fisheries legislation and the Ombudsman’s letter to me lists 11 AFMA actions as a result of my complaint.
Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas)
Also known as Green Turtle, Black (sea) Turtle, or Pacific Green Turtle and can be found on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.
The species is listed as ‘Endangered‘ by the IUCN and CITES and is protected from exploitation in most countries where it is illegal to collect, harm or kill them.
.
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is one of the world’s seven natural wonders. It is the world’s largest reef system stretching over 2,600 kilometres from Lady Elliot Island off Gladstone Harbour up to the top of Cape York Peninsula at the Torres Strait.
The Great Barrier Reef has 411 types of hard coral, comprises 900 islands and 2,900 individual coral reefs as well as many cays and lagoons . It is a natural sanctuary for 36 species of marine mammals including whales, dolphins and porpoises, some 1500 fish species, 134 species of sharks and rays, 4,000 types of mollusc and is home to 215 species of birds either migrating, nesting or roosting on the islands.
The Reef and associated beaches provide vital habitat home to six species of sea turtles which swim vast distances to the reef to breed including the Green Sea Turtle. Both the Green Sea Turtle and the unusual Dugong are species particularly threatened with extinction due to Aboriginal Poaching and associated non-traditional commercial exploitation.
Dugong (Dugong dugon) feeding on Sea Grass Meadows
(Photo by Barry Ingham)
.
Dugongs?
.
Dugongs were hunted toward extinction by European colonists during the 19th Century for their meat and oil.
Most Dugongs now live in the northern waters of Australia between Shark Bay and Moreton Bay particularly in the Torres Strait and along the Grest Barrier Reef. Ongoing ‘traditional’ hunting is driving populations close to extinction. Consequently the IUCN lists Dugongs as ‘Vulnerable‘ to extinction, while the CITES limits or bans the trade of derived products.
Australian Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders ignore this and continue to poach Dugongs for non-traditional commercial exploitation. ^Read about Dugongs
.
In 1981, The Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the UNESCO’s World Heritage List under all four natural World Heritage criteria for its outstanding universal value:
Outstanding example representing a major stage of the Earth’s evolutionary history
Outstanding example representing significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man’s interaction with his natural environment
Contains unique, rare and superlative natural phenomena, formations and features and areas of exceptional natural beauty
Provide habitats where populations of rare and endangered species of plants and animals still survive
.
The IUCN-protected Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is 345,000 square kilometres in size; five times the size of Tasmania or larger that the United Kingdom and Ireland combined!
As scientists have become to understand more about the Reef’s complex ecosystem, they have discovered that damaging fishing practices, pollution and coral bleaching exacerbated by increased sea temperatures due to global warming are compounding to jeopardise the Reef’s future.
.
The ecological protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is delegated by the IUCN to the safe custody and sovereignty of the Australian Government, currently under the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke MP. The management task in turn has delegated the responsibility to The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority guided by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cwlth), which is headquartered in Townsville and with regional offices in Cairns, Mackay, Rockhampton and Canberra.
.
“The Great Barrier Reef is internationally recognised for its outstanding biodiversity. The World Heritage status of the Reef recognises its great diversity of species and habitats. Conserving the Reef’s biodiversity is not just desirable – it is essential. By protecting biodiversity, we are protecting our future and our children’s future.”
Because of the Reef’s magnificent biodiversity, diving on the Reef is very popular
(Diver with Green Sea Turtle)
Tourism Australia promotes the Reef thus:
.
‘Once you’ve experienced the Great Barrier Reef you will know why it is one of the seven wonders of the natural world. Diving and snorkelling are a must. Stay at a one of the many heavenly island resorts. Charter a yacht and sail The Whitsundays. Find your own uninhabited island. Where else in the world can you find a beach where the only footprints in the sand are your own.
There are hundreds of dreamy islands and coral atolls on the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef, so take your pick. Luxury lovers and honeymooners will be in heaven on Lizard Island, exclusive Bedarra or privately-owned Double and Haggerstone Islands. For a wilderness experience, bush camp on Fitzroy Island or trek the Thorsborne Trail along mist-cloaked Hinchinbrook Island. Day trip to Green and Fitzroy Islands, snorkel the brilliant coral reefs of the Low Isles or sea kayak around Snapper Island, Hope Islands National Park with an Aboriginal guide. Townsville, Port Douglas and Lucinda are just some of the mainland gateways.’
.
And at the northern tip of the Reef, Cape York and the Torres Strait Islands are promoted thus:
.
‘Sitting just north of Cape York, between Australia and Papua New Guinea, the Torres Strait Islands are made up of 274 small islands, only 17 of which are inhabited. These communities have developed a unique blend of Melanesian and Australian Aboriginal cultures. Get a glimpse with a trip to Thursday or Horn Island, the group’s most developed islands. Learn about the local pearling and fishing industry on Thursday island, reached by ferry from Cape York. Visit the museum, art gallery and historic World War II sites on Horn Island, accessible by flight. Both islands are blessed with pristine beaches, azure waters and vivid fringing reefs supporting dugongs and sea turtles.’
Australia’s disturbing reality on The Reef and at Cape York
There are thousands of native Sea Turtles dying on our Great Barrier Reef as a result of:
Water Pollution from sewage and stormwater
Water pollution and farm pestidices, herbicides and fertilisers
Damaging Fishing Practices
Illegal Poaching
Cyclones and Flooding
Tredging of Gladstone Harbour and associated coastal Industrial Development
Bulk Cargo Ships leaking contaminants
Gladstone Harbour dredging in 2011-12 by the Gladstone Ports Corporation and LNG
..continues to muddy Barrier Reef habitat and destroy Sea Grass Meadows critical to Sea Turtkes and Dungongs
.
The recent Queensland floods and cyclones have starkly shown the impacts of water pollution on the marine environment. Pesticide and mud pollution from out-dated farming practices has led to a massive spike in Dugong and Sea Turtle deaths.
In addition, poor fishing practices can still kill too many of our Sea Turtles and Dugongs, and industrial development is proliferating along the coast and removing remaining habitats, such as Sea Grass Meadows that Sea Turtles and Dugongs depend on for their survival.
Over the past 12 months, more than 1,400 turtles and 180 dugongs have washed up on our beaches. Clearly our Reef is under enormous pressure and our wildlife is suffering.
The Great Barrier Reef is a World Heritage global icon and something that Queenslanders are proud to be the custodians of. It is unacceptable to many of us that the Reef would be under this amount of pressure. We’re not alone in these concerns – UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee also expressed serious concern recently about the long-term health of the Great Barrier Reef.
Oil is seen next to the 230-metre bulk coal carrier Shen Neng I about 70 kilometres east of Great Keppel Island, 20100404.
“damage to the reef is significant, with large parts of Douglas Shoal “completely flattened” and marine life “pulverised”.(Maritime Safety Queensland/Reuters)
.
‘130 turtles stranded this year‘
.
‘The Scientific Advisory Committee has been charged with the task of investigating this year’s spate of marine animal deaths in Gladstone Harbour.
Responding to calls for all results to be made public, the environment minister’s office provided the following data:
130 turtle strandings were reported; 11 of those were released or in rehabilitation
Of 119 turtles found dead in the harbour this year, only 24 had autopsies conducted
.
Of those 24 turtles, 13 were identified as dying from human activity (11 boat strikes and two undetermined); 11 were identified as dying from natural causes (10 from ill health and disease and one undetermined).
Eight Dugongs have been found dead. One was killed by boat strike and one from netting. The remaining six were too badly decomposed for autopsies.
Five Dolphin deaths were reported. One was caused by unspecified human activity. The remaining four were too decomposed.
Because floods damaged seagrass levels, marine animals are more vulnerable to human activity.’
This dead dugong was found on Witt Island by Clive Last (July 2011) who is increasing worried by marine animal deaths in Gladstone Harbour (Great Barrier Reef).
.
‘Another dead Dugong has been found in Gladstone Harbour, and the man who found it wants some answers.
Clive Last, who in May discovered a dead dolphin on Turtle Island, was shocked on Friday afternoon when he found the body of a dead Dugong on Witt Island.
Mr Last is wary of suggestions marine animal deaths this year can be attributed to boat strikes and net fishing. He said those explanations didn’t match his observations on the harbour.
“I honestly believe it’s either starvation (from damaged seagrass meadows) or there is something in the harbour,” Mr Last said. “Right now, Turtles and Dugongs are continually coming up. That means there is (something) going on.”
He believed the Dolphin he found in May had no injuries to indicate it had been killed by boat strike or fishing nets.
The Department of Environment and Resource Management reported the Dolphin’s body was too decomposed to conduct a necropsy.
Mr Last said, once again, the dead Dugong’s body showed no sign of injury. He took five photos and called Queensland Parks and Wildlife.
Mr Last, whose work requires him to spend a lot of time on the harbour, is increasingly disturbed by the trend of dead marine animals in Gladstone Harbour.
“If I don’t see another one after today, I’ll be very happy,” he said. “I’d also be very happy if someone would come up with the truth about what is really killing them. “You can’t keep saying it’s boat strike, when I’ve got photos showing it’s not boat strike.”
Mr Last said he was worried the scientific advisory committee’s investigation into the deaths in Gladstone Harbour would take too long to come up with results.
DERM (Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management) could not be contacted over the weekend.
The list goes on:
The dead Dugong found on Witt Island was the latest in a long, mysterious list of marine animal deaths this year.
Three dead Dolphins were found in Gladstone Harbour in May, within two weeks of each other.
The latest discovery is the fourth Dugong found dead in the harbour since May
More than 40 Turtles have washed up dead in the harbour since April. The Turtle deaths have been the subject of intense debate between environmentalists and commercial fishermen.
Marine experts from various organisations have told The Observer seagrass levels, damaged by the floods, are putting stress on the animals.
.
“LNG will deliver billions of Australian Dollars to be shipped overseas as profit we will be left with the rotting carcasses of dead dugongs, poisoned water tables, destroyed farmland and a bill for the infrastructure the council builds for them.”
~ Comment by Chris Norman from Agnes Waters (July 2011)
Heinous cruelty as Aborigines hack live pregnant Green Sea Turtle
.
There’s tension in far north Queensland between Traditional Hunting rights (Ed: read ‘perversion’) and the protection of Turtles and Dugongs, and it is resulting in some horrific treatment of native animals.
Transcript from ABC Broadcast (extracts of video added):
.
CHRIS UHLMANN, PRESENTER: Protected Dugongs and Sea Turtles are being cruelly slaughtered in Queensland’s Torres Strait to supply an illegal meat trade.
Tranquil coastal tip of Cape York Peninsula and the Torres Strait
.
An investigation by 7.30 has found deeply confronting footage that we are about to air. It shows the brutal methods used to hunt the animals, with turtles being butchered alive and dugongs drowned as they’re dragged behind boats.
The investigation throws into sharp relief the conflict between Indigenous Australians and animal rights activists over traditional hunting and exposes a black market in animal meat.
And a warning: this report by Sarah Dingle and producer Lesley Robinson contains disturbing images and coarse language.
SARAH DINGLE, REPORTER: At the northern-most tip of Australia lie the serene islands and waters of Queensland’s Torres Strait, the birthplace of Native Title. But on those beaches, there’s a slaughter underway.
7.30 travelled to far North Queensland where IT entrepreneur turned eco warrior Rupert Imhoff has been investigating the fate of threatened turtle and dugong populations. And what he found is shocking. A turtle lies tethered for up to three days, waiting to die.
Green Sea Turtles are routinely tethered by rope by local Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander men in the shallows, then inverted on to their backs so that they tire from struggling and often drown.
.
RUPERT IMHOFF, ECO WARRIOR: They dragged it out of the water, flipped it on its back. You could see it was already terrorised. It was flapping around madly. And they came up with this concrete block and basically tried to slam it in the head, obviously to stun the animal. Didn’t quite work.
Man uses a concrete block and throws it twice at the Turtles headbut the female Turtle continues to flap. She has no voice.
.
SARAH DINGLE: The images become even more confronting.
RUPERT IMHOFF: Before they started hacking off its fins, they wanted to check if it was pregnant, and sure enough this turtle was a mature aged turtle. Had up to 125 eggs in it. It was gonna be the next generation of turtles, but they decided to cut it up right there and then.
Aboriginal man knifes into the womb of the female Turtle to see it if pregnant – she is.
.
SARAH DINGLE: Even as it’s hacked, the turtle clings to life, apparently in agony for seven and a half minutes.
The man then starts hacking into the live healthy TurtleLeft flipper already hacked off, the still live turtle has its right flipper hacked off, while the men keep it helplessly lying on its back
.
RUPERT IMHOFF: Didn’t actually die until they took off the bottom shell, they actually peeled off the shell and then it just let out one gasp – one last gasp of air and passed away.
SARAH DINGLE: Using a hidden camera, Rupert Imhoff spent two weeks in the Torres Strait filming the hunting of sea turtle and dugong which are both listed as vulnerable to extinction.
RUPERT IMHOFF: They go out, they spear them at sea, they then tie the tail to the back of the boat and they hold the head underwater. And it can take up to seven and a half minutes again, so I’ve been told, for that dugong to drown.
Speared Dugong, still alive is tied by the tail fin to the side of the boat so it drowns as the boat returns to shore
.
SARAH DINGLE: Here, a Dugong is methodically carved up for consumption. For anyone else, this kill would be illegal, as dugong are protected under federal law. However, the Native Title Act allows traditional owners to hunt to satisfy their personal, domestic or non-commercial communal needs.
Anywhere in Australia, this horrific cruelty would be will illegal. But in Queensland alone, Native Title hunting is exempt from animal cruelty laws. Animal rights activists are appalled.
Lawyer Rebecca Smith was a paid consultant on the turtle and dugong hunt for the Torres Strait Regional Authority.
REBECCA SMITH, LAWYER: Most conservation groups won’t touch this issue. It’s just too hard, too prickly, too sensitive. It’s often deemed – people who are opposed to traditional hunting are often called racist, but there’s nothing racist about saying, “This is cruel. We’ll move on from there. We’ll do this humanely now. We’ve progressed.”
SARAH DINGLE: Aerial surveys of dugong and turtle numbers are imperfect and no-one knows exactly how many there are. Green sea turtles face an extra pressure. They’re by far the turtle species most intensively hunted for their meat. But locals say there are bigger threats for turtle and dugong.
???: You know we are under threat from pig predation, our – one of the greatest, biggest rookeries in the Southern Hemisphere on Cape York, Rain Island, is under threat from climate change, but we seem to be concentrating I think far too much on, you know, Indigenous people hunting them.
SARAH DINGLE: What is known is that the Great Barrier Reef is a last stronghold. It’s home to the biggest sea turtle rookery in the globe and one of the world’s largest population of dugong.
Cairns-based Colin Riddell calls himself “The Dugong Man”. A former abattoir worker, he’s an unlikely but tireless campaigner for animal rights.
COLIN RIDDELL, ANIMAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGNER: I have to pursue it to the end because otherwise the end may be for the animals.
SARAH DINGLE: Colin Riddell’s investigations have revealed the slaughter goes on far to the south in coastal Queensland waters.
Green Island is one of the jewels in the crown of Cairns tourism. We’ve been told just last week at this spot Indigenous hunters chased down and took a green sea turtle in full view of shocked tourists. There’s no way of knowing where those hunters came from, but locals say this is a weekly occurrence on this island.
STEVE DAVIES, TOUR OPERATOR: They can be out there a lot, you know – three, four, five times a week. They come across in quite large tinnies with large outboard motors on board and they chase the turtles till they’re completely and utterly exhausted.
SARAH DINGLE: The culture clash between hunters and tourists has led to heated confrontations.
INDIGENOUS HUNTER (Amateur video): This our land! We don’t list end to your shit, mate! We can do anything on this land we wanna do, mate!
SARAH DINGLE: This video was shot two weeks ago by a tourist and given to 7.30. It shows an allocation between a tour boat and three Indigenous hunters.
INDIGENOUS HUNTER (Amateur video): Ya just don’t tell us what to do on our land! You’re not from this f***in’ land; we are! We’re the traditional owner! We own every f***in’ reef around here, mate!
SARAH DINGLE: It’s not clear what they’re hunting for, but there’s no mistaking the tensions.
INDIGENOUS HUNTER (Amateur video): You f*** off back to your country. This is my country, c***.
SARAH DINGLE: Is there a sense in your area that the Indigenous hunters are untouchable?
STEVE DAVIES: Without a doubt. And they believe they’re untouchable.
SARAH DINGLE: But there are conservation efforts.
Well away from the glitzy marinas and the tourist strip, here in the industrial area of Cairns is the town’s only turtle rehabilitation centre. It’s run on the smell of an oily rag. Here, injured and starving turtles are treated and brought back to full health.
Today, Jenny Gilbert and her team are readying a 180 kilogram breeding age female green sea turtle for release. By the look of things, this 80-year-old turtle has already survived a number of hazards.
Turtles like this are being hunted not traditionally, but for a very modern purpose. Our investigations have revealed the hunt is feeding a flourishing black market.
JAMES EPONG, MANDUBARRA LAND & SEA CORP.: Well nine times out 10 the illegal trade is to sell the meat for the benefit – for grog money or drugs.
SARAH DINGLE: And can you can make a buck out of it?
JAMES EPONG: Yes. There’s one person that we know of in Yarrabah made $80,000 one year.
SARAH DINGLE: James Epong is a Mandubarra man who lives on his traditional lands an hour south of Cairns and Yarrabah. The Mandubarra have declared a moratorium on taking turtle and dugong from their see country, but around them, the illegal meat trade continues.
JAMES EPONG: I myself went to a pub on a Friday afternoon to go and have a coldie with one of me mates and was approached by some other Indigenous people with trivac (phonetic spelling) meat for sale, which was turtle and dugong.
SARAH DINGLE: On four separate occasions 7.30 has confirmed multiple eskies arriving on the afternoon flight from Horn Island to Cairns.
RUPERT IMHOFF: I do not know 100 per cent for a fact what was in those eskies, but I have heard numerous reports and been told by the islanders themselves that they are transporting an excessive amount of turtle and dugong down to Cairns. Now on my flight I think there was about six or seven eskies that come off and I’ve been told that it almost a daily routine.
SARAH DINGLE: Indigenous sea rangers are employed and equipped by governments to care for marine wildlife. This esky was addressed to a ranger.
RUPERT IMHOFF: From what I understand and what I observed and what I spoke to the islanders about is the head hunters on all these islands are actually the rangers themselves. Now this money has gone into their pockets. It’s gonna help them buy outboard motors and help them basically go and hunt these turtle and dugong down in bigger numbers.
SARAH DINGLE: Were any of the people you saw hunting and killing animals rangers?
RUPERT IMHOFF: Yes, they were 100 per cent.
SARAH DINGLE: Did you pay those people in your footage to do what they were doing?
RUPERT IMHOFF: We did not pay a single person any money while we were up there.
SARAH DINGLE: And the illegal trade continues further south.
SEITH FOURMILE, CAIRNS TRADITIONAL OWNER: I know that there’s a lot of non-Indigenous people that are doing it as well.
SARAH DINGLE: Are they doing the hunting or are they involved in other way?
SEITH FOURMILE: They’re involved with the trading of it, or selling it and passing it down, and some of the turtle meats has gone far down as Sydney and Melbourne.
SARAH DINGLE: And it’s not just dugong and turtle meat being sold. Traditional owners from Cape York are pushing to end the indiscriminate slaughter and stop the esky trade.
Sea Turtle air freighted from Cairns to Sydney and MelbourneNothing to do with ‘Traditional Hunting’, which is a low-life smokescreen for what it really is: Illegal Wildlife Poaching and Trade for personal commercial profit.
.
FRANKIE DEEMAL, TURTLE AND DUGONG TASKFORCE: We don’t have that kind of legislative assistance to do that. What do you do when you confront a rogue killer?
SARAH DINGLE: And we’ve heard a lotta people talk about rogue killers. Who are these rogue killers?
FRANKIE DEEMAL: They’re there.
SARAH DINGLE: Who are they?
FRANKIE DEEMAL: They know who they are.
SARAH DINGLE: For those with Native Title rights, customs can change.
LOCAL MAN: We’re gonna name this turtle Bumbida (phonetic spelling), after our grandmother.
SARAH DINGLE: But the Mandubarra people at least have sworn to protect these animals.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Sarah Dingle with that report, produced by Lesley Robinson.
And 7.30 contacted the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management. In a statement it said it takes, “the claims very seriously and will investigate all reports of illegal hunting and poaching”.
You can follow the progress of the turtles released in this story by going to the sea turtle satellite tracking page.
Editor’s note: (April 16) the ABC also approached the Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA) several times over the course of a week prior to broadcast but their spokesperson was unavailable for comment.
Watch the entire Documentary aired nationally across Australia in March 2012:
WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS DISTURBING ANIMAL CRUELTY WHICH MAY OFFEND. WE INCLUDE IT TO PORTRAY THE REALITY OF AUSTRALIA’S TREATMENT OF TURTLES AND DUGONGS IN THE NAME OF ‘TRADITIONAL HUNTING’
[Source: ‘Hunting rights hide horror for dugongs, turtles’, by reporters Sarah Dingle and Lesley Robinson, documentary presented by Chris Uhlmann, 730 Programme, 20120308, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ^http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3448943.htm]
.
.
‘Queensland to outlaw Dugong-hunt cruelty’
.
Animal activists have welcomed moves by the Queensland Government to outlaw hunting-related cruelty to dugongs and turtles.
.
‘Under the Native Title Act, traditional owners are allowed to hunt Turtles and Dugongs.’
.
Footage aired on the ABC in March showed animals being butchered alive by some Indigenous hunters and sparked an investigation into the practice.
Queensland Fisheries Minister John McVeigh yesterday introduced legislation into Parliament to outlaw any unreasonable pain being inflicted during hunting.
The RSPCA’s Michael Beatty says the Government should be commended.
“No-one thinks – including the Indigenous leaders – that this type of cruelty, if you like, is necessary,” he said.
Mr Beatty says authorities need to continue to work with traditional owners. “It isn’t simply a case of just outlawing it, it really isn’t that simple because obviously it has to be policed as well,” he said.
But animal activist Colin Riddell says the hunting should be banned altogether. “People flock to Australia to see our Great Barrier Reef and see those beautiful animals and I fear for the day that my children, your children don’t get to see those animals,” he said.
Native title hunting rights would not be extinguished by the Bill.’
But this heinous cruelty by Indigenous Australians has long been know by the Australian Government..
.
Back in 2011: ‘Call for inquiry into marine animal poaching‘
.
The Federal Opposition has called for a judicial inquiry into Dugong and Turtle poaching in far north Queensland. Tourism operators say tourists have been exposed to mutilated and slaughtered turtles on island beaches, off Cairns. Four far north Queensland Liberal National Party (LNP) candidates say they want that stopped at key tourism sites.
Pictures of a mutilated turtle found on Green Island by tourists at the weekend have prompted public outrage. The animals are legally protected but the Native Title Act allows for hunting by traditional owners.
But Federal Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt says legal hunting is not the problem.
“The advice we have from Indigenous leaders is that the vast bulk of hunting is poaching,” he said. Mr Hunt says inaction on poaching is causing problems.
“There really has to be a crackdown on poaching,” he said. “The vast bulk of the take of Turtle and Dugong is coming from poaching. “There is a trade in illegally obtained meat and animal product. “This is a complete breach of the law.”
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is investigating the issue.
Back in 2010: ‘Cairns Turtle and Dugong activist campaigns against slaughter caught on video’
.
Former union activist turned environmental defender Colin Ridell, who counts Bob Irwin, John Mackenzie, Derryn Hinch and Greg Hunt MP among his loyal following, says the silence is deafening from the government to stop slaughter of turtles on the waters around Cairns.
Riddell is campaigning to reduce the taking of turtle and dugong, that is occurring under the protection of Native Title, until a complete scientific study is done to determine the actual numbers to be taken.
“It will be tightly controlled by the EPA and the elders with a permit system, that is monitored by special investigators. I and other indigenous elders support a moratorium to determine the take,” Riddell says. “The skulls of each to be kept to determine actual permitted numbers taken, as is done in other permit systems.”
He says that any breach would carry a substantial penalty, however advocates a complete ban in green zones, like all our coastal tourist areas. “I don’t want international tourists and interstate visitors to take home horror stories.”
The campaign follows the leaking of a graphic video showing a turtle having its flippers hacked off while still alive. RSPCA Queensland has called for a review of traditional hunting.
“It’s just not good enough, this is a violent and obscene way to treat these animals, ” Cairns resident Colin Riddell told CairnsBlog. “Any indigenous person is allowed to kill sea turtles and dugongs for weddings or funerals, but it has far beyond that, and is being commercially moved around the state.
“I don’t want international tourists and interstate visitors to take back horror stories home,” he says Riddell, who has taken his campaign to every State and Federal Government minister.
“I’ve written to the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships who have acknowledged my letter,” Riddell says. “The replied thanking me for me letter and said it ‘will be actioned as appropriate.’ However I have received no response,” he says.
Riddell has also wrote to Greg Combet for support, who he engaged with as a Manufacturing Workers Union site convener at the Australian Defence Industries Benalla plant. He says that Environment Minister Peter Garrett has also given him the “bum’s rush.”
“I received a response from the ‘Parliamentary Clearance Officer’ however it was totally unsatisfactory,” Riddell said. “I told them to get my message Peter Garrett, which was a direct result of Jim Turnour’s and Peter Garrett staffers. Weak efforts.”
Another response from the International Whaling Commission fell on deaf ears. “I asked them why we condemn Japan when Australians do the same,” Colin Riddell said. Julie Creek, responded. “Your message was deleted without being read.”
The original poster of the graphic video says that it’s fair enough if you have to kill turtles because it is a “traditional right” but who cuts the leg of a cow first and let it die in its own blood?
“No one is going to starve in Australia because we stop the killing of turtles. Australia earns millions of dollars with the tourism industry – with tourists who come to dive with turtles and in the same country we torture the turtles to death,” the anonymous poster wrote. “Species will vanish forever and in the end it does not matter whose fault it was. This is not a question of human races this is a question of respect and ethics towards other creatures.”
Colin Riddell and the RSPCA are trying to track down who shot the video and where it was taken, so they can investigate the incident. It is believed it was filmed in North Queensland mid last year.
.
“Until now cruelty to animals using traditional hunting methods has been put in the too hard basket by governments.”
.
Mark Townend of the RSPCA said. “Far from it, he said. We have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island elders who support us on this issue.
.
“Hunting from tinnies with rifles is not traditional.”
.
“We’re committed to ensuring that any breaches of the Animal Care and Protection Act are fully investigated while at the same time taking into consideration traditional hunting rights,” RSPCA chief inspector Michael Pecic says. “We can’t do this alone. We’re a charity and yet it appears we’re the only organisation that is taking this matter seriously.”
“We have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island elders who support us on this issue,” Riddell says. “Hunting from tinnies with rifles is not traditional. Leaving turtles and dugongs to be butchered alive and left to die on the beach is not traditional. We’re not attacking the indigenous community. This is simply not an appropriate way to kill these animals.”
James Epong, son of an aboriginal elder says that Ma:mu traditional owners have a right to hunt for protected species such as dugong and marine turtles that is recognised by Australian Law.
“Our Ma:mu traditional owners, who are also called the Mandubarra mob, have put aside some of these rights and signed a Traditional Use Marine Resource Agreement so they can protect rather that exploit dugong and marine turtles,” James Epong says.
The agreement for their turtle business is co-ordinated through the Mandubarra Land and Sea Corporation and was finalised in June 2008.
“I am very proud to see that Ma:mu traditional owners are prepared to sacrifice rights and traditions, for the sake of helping threatened turtle and dugong stocks recover,” Epong says. “Keep in mind the Ma:mu people are setting aside hunting and cultural practices that go back tens of thousands of years for the future benefit of all Australians.”
In 1996, a landmark High Court decision concerned with particular pastoral titles, was passed regarding Native Title hunting rights. The decision did not allow anyone simply to claim Indigenous links and then hunt and kill native animals anywhere in Queensland. It authorised any legitimate native title holder to hunt and kill for genuine sustenance and other needs and without first obtaining a licence, but only in areas over which native title is held by that group.
The decision did not allow native title owners to trap or kill wildlife for commercial purposes, however Colin Riddell says that this is occurring. “These area being transported through the Cairns Airport in Eskys,” he says.
Riddell says on his website that the 1996 decision says nothing one way or the other about using modern weapons like guns and powered boats to undertake traditional hunting. It is interesting that the use of harpoons, outboard-powered boats, and steel axes to kill the crocodiles as an exercise of native title hunting rights.
“It seemed to concern nobody on the High Court bench, with the possible exception of Justice Callinan. Followers of native title developments need to keep in mind the distinction between exercising an established native right in a modern way, as in the Yanner case, and the loss or abandonment of traditional and established native title rights themselves, as found by the trial judge to be a fatal flaw in the Yorta Yorta decision.”
.
Commercial Exploitation of Hunting and Fishing Rights
This issue, namely the extent to which the holders of native title may exercise the relevant rights in a “modern” fashion, and indeed the connected issue of whether they might even commercially exploit those rights, are difficult ones. Whilst not directly in issue in the Yanner case, these issues are of considerable importance in the broader scheme of Australian native title law – and are yet to be answered conclusively.
Some important developments in this area are taking place in Canada. In the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1997 decision in Delgamuukw v British Columbia, the majority judges noted that, while the rights of Indigenous title holders in that jurisdiction are not limited to engagement in activities which are aspects of practices, customs, and traditions integral to the claimant group’s distinctive Indigenous culture, lands held by Aboriginal title cannot be used in a manner that is irreconcilable with the nature of the claimants’ attachment to those lands.
So, for example, tribal hunting areas may not be “strip mined” or, so it would seem, “hunted out” or “fished out” in a large-scale commercial operation. Contrast this with small-scale trading between local Indigenous people and others, for which there is some historical and anthropological evidence in Australia and elsewhere.
There are important legal differences between the doctrines of Aboriginal title in Canada and Australia, but there are also some important similarities which indicate that these Canadian developments might in the future be of relevance in Australia. Of course, it is also important in Australia to note that the Commonwealth Native Title Act moderates but does not destroy the capacity of the States and Territories to regulate the exercise of native title rights along with other rights, as in fishing, conservation, and safety legislation which might apply equally to Indigenous and non-Indigenous people alike.
“Jim Turnour says this is a racial issue,” Colin Riddell says. “You know, I’m disgruntled as well. You know what I do. I tell you what, I’m begging people to vote for Warren Entsch in and get rid of Jimmy,” he says.
See the shocking video here…
WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS DISTURBING ANIMAL CRUELTY WHICH MAY OFFEND. WE INCLUDE IT TO PORTRAY THE REALITY OF AUSTRALIA’S TREATMENT OF TURTLES AND DUGONGS IN THE NAME OF ‘TRADITIONAL HUNTING’
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has been aware, so is complicit, immoral, incompetent and so entire Board should now be immediately sacked, and any government employee (rangers or otherwise found to have been in anyway involved with the killing of Dungongs or Turtles or trading in their body parts.
The killing of Dungongs or Turtles in Australia is to be immediately policed and investigated jointly by the Australian Government, whatever the causes of the deaths
The Australian Government needs to amend Australia’s Native Title Act 1993 and Australian Crimes Act 1914 to make any cruelty toward any wildlife in Australia and its territories a criminal act under Australian Crimes Act. Traditional Hunting that involves cruelty is to be outlawed. It is Commercial Exploitation of Traditional Hunting and Fishing Rights.
“It could take 20 years or more for the Great Barrier Reef to recover from three kilometres of destruction caused by the grounding of a Chinese coal ship, authorities have revealed. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority says the damage to the reef is significant, with large parts of Douglas Shoal “completely flattened” and marine life “pulverised”.
The following article is from the Tasmanian Times entitled ‘This is just plain wrong. Why is it allowed to continue?‘ contributed by Tasmanian resident Prue Barratt 20120614. Tigerquoll has contributed to the debate condemning prescribed burning. Further investigation has revealed the extent of the bush arson culture on the Island and is included below.
What’s left of Tombstone Creek old growth rainforest in Tasmania after a ‘Planned Burn’This wet forest was dominated by sassafras, myrtle, tree-ferns and tall Eucalyptus after logging and subsequent regeneration burn, 2006. It is situated at the headwaters of the South Esk River catchment water supply for the town of Launceston.
(Photo by Rob Blakers, 2006)
.
‘My name is Prue Barratt and I live in Maydena in the Derwent Valley (Tasmania). I’m writing this to highlight what small towns around this state have to deal with in Autumn and Winter.
Today (Wednesday) started off as a spectacular crisp winter’s day; one of a few really beautiful days we get through our colder months. So I was excited to get outside for the day to enjoy the sun. But by the time I organised myself to venture out it was too late … as I opened my front door I was confronted by smoke … it was literally blowing in my door.
I covered my nose and stepped out to see what was going on and realised there were fires right around our little town; not one fire but a two or maybe three, I couldn’t actually see how many because I couldn’t see and I could hardly breath, I stepped back inside, grabbed the camera, and took the pictures above; this was the view from my roof … 360 degrees surrounded by smoke.
It was one of the worst smoke-outs I had experienced whilst living here and by the time I got back inside I reeked of smoke.
This is just plain wrong. It is the 21st Century on a planet that is worried about carbon pollution! Our leaders need to put an end to these archaic practices now. There is no need to subject communities or the environment in general to this kind off filthy practice.
Tasmania already has one of the country’s highest rates of asthma allergies and lung problems. Why is this allowed to continue? Tassie is supposed to be the “Clean Green State”.
I’m pretty sure the tourist bus loaded with people which crawled through town didn’t think it was a clean green state. I’m pretty sure they were horrified that this happens in a supposed developed country every year.
When your eyes are stinging and you are too scared to open the doors of your home because your house will become unbearably flooded with smoke; when you are concerned for the wellbeing of old and frail family members because you just can’t get away from it unless you completely pack up and leave for the night …
You feel like a prisoner in your own home … in country in this day and age.. There is a serious problem!
Postscript: I just needed to add to my article that three Norske Skog (Boyer pulp mill) employees just turned up on my doorstep and apologised for all the smoke. They weren’t burning coupes but were asked by a couple of locals to burn piles close to their houses; most of the coupes were already burnt earlier in the season, so I need to acknowledge that … but the whole burning off thing needs to stop regardless. They said they were looking into alternatives but it needs to stop now; not later. They have had long enough to change the way they do things … at our expense.’
[end of article]
.Smoke-filled atmosphere engulfing Maydena, South West Tasmania
(Photo by Prue Barratt, April 2012)
.
In 2009 paper maker, Norske Skog, with its pulp mill plant situated at Boyer on Tasmania’s Derwent River, axed 50 jobs as a combined consequence of its automation upgrade to its pulp mill plant and due to the structural downturn in paper sales by its newspaper clients.
Ed: Newspapers are losing advertising revenue to Internet based businesses like Seek.com, CarSales.com.au, and HomeSales.com.au and so selling less newspapers and so buying less paper from the likes of Norske Skog.
Pile burning and forest (coupe) burning by Norske Skog is typical business-as-usual deforestation across Tasmania, not only by the forestry industry but by National Parks, the Tasmanian Fire Service and by rural landholders. It is all part of an inherited colonial cult of bush arson that is a key threatening process driving habitat extinctions across the island. Prescribed burning, aka ‘hazard reduction’, is a euphemism for State-sanctioned bush arson which is endemic practice not only across Tasmania’s remanining wild forests, but throughout Australia. It is a major contributor to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, which are what many scientists argue are Man’s cause of global warming and climate change.
The Gillard Labor Government is about to introduce a Carbon Tax on 1st July 2012, whereby Australia’s major industrial polluters must pay a Carbon Tax of $23 per tonne. Yet the many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of timber that are burnt by bushfires is somehow excluded – whether it be lightning ignitions allowed to get out of control, or deliberate State-sanctioned bush arson. This makes the Carbon Tax nothing but discriminating political greenwashing, with minimal climate impact. Meanwhile, and more critically, Australia’s ecology, regions by regions, is being driven closer to extinction by destructive bushfire management.
.
Comments to Prue’s article by Tigerquoll
.
‘CEO Bob Gordon and his Forestry Tasmania (FT) forest marauders along with his partners in eco-crime Tasmania Fire Service (TFS) Chief Officer Mike Brown need to be paying Julia’s Carbon Tax. But instead of $23 per tonne, it ought be $23 per cubic metre.
Send the two organisations broke. Do not donate to the TFS bastards. They light more fires than they put out. ‘Fuel’ Reduction is a euphemism for bush arson. It gives ‘em somthing to do in the off season. It reflects the helpless defeatism of Tasmania’s non urban fire emergency service denied proper and effective government resources to put out serious wildfires when they occur.’
.
TFS bastards setting fire to native forests is defeatism, knowing that unless native vegetation is converted to sterile parkland that in a real wildlife it is every man for himself.
They even have removed the ‘Low Fire Risk’ category and added a ‘CatastrophicFire Risk’ category. They may as well add an ‘Armageddon’ category and be done with it! It is defeatism at its worst.
Local case in point – look recent Meadowbank Fire near Maydena in February this year east of Karanja. It started on Saturday, reportedly by “accident” at the Meadowbank Dam and burnt out 5000 hectares. Two days later was still officially ‘out of control’. The meaningless and flawed motto of ‘Stay or Go’ was supplanted by the false sense of security of ‘Prepare, Act, Survive’. In reality the pragmatic community message ought to be ‘You’re On Your Own’.
This Tassie Dad’s Army fire agency is more adept at starting bushfires than putting them out.
The under-resourced, raffle funded volunteer dependent model is abject Government neglect of emergency management. Every time someone criticises the non-urban fire fighting performance, the government bureaucracy and politicans hide behinds the nobleness of community volunteers.
Imagine if URBAN fire fighting was volunteer dependent on someone’s pager going off? Goodbye house.
I feel for the volunteers, but have no respect for the policy or organisation.’
Here’s a question..what is the impact on Tasmanian fauna?
Here’s some research…
“It’s spring, and soon we’ll start to get sensationalist stories predicting a horrendous bushfire season ahead. They will carry attacks on agencies for not doing enough to reduce fuel loads in forests close to homes, for unless those living on the urban fringe see their skies filled with smoke in winter they panic about losing their homes in January.
Fighting fires with fear is a depressing annual event and easy sport on slow news days. Usually the debate fails to ask two crucial questions: does hazard reduction really do anything to save homes, and what’s the cost to native plants and animals caught in burn-offs?
…A new scientific paper published in the CSIRO journal Wildlife Research by Michael Clarke, an associate professor in the department of zoology at La Trobe University, suggests the answer to both questions is: we do not know.
Much hazard reduction is performed to create a false sense of security rather than to reduce fire risks, and the effect on wildlife is virtually unknown.’
State-sanctioned bush arson in Tasmania
[Source: http://www.forestrytasmania.com/fire/fire1.html]
.
Bushfires, their smoke and heat, contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. So Bushfire Management has an obligation to reduce bushfires, not create them. Bushfire Management needs to pay a Carbon Tax just like any other industrial polluter.
.
.
‘Forestry tries to spin results of CSIRO Emissions Study’
..more smoke and mirrors from an out-of-touch agency.
‘The Tasmanian Greens today said that a CSIRO study comparing smoke emissions from wood-heaters with forestry burn-offs did nothing to justify Forestry Tasmania’s outdated and unsustainable management practices. The study, commissioned by Forestry Tasmania, found that the majority of smoke pollution in specific parts of the Huon Valley during 2009 and 2010 was caused by wood-heater emissions.
Greens Forestry spokesperson Kim Booth MP said that these results aren’t surprising, particularly in the more densely populated areas such as Geeveston and Grove where the study was conducted.
“This is not a case of one type of smoke pollution being better than another. All smoke emissions are an unwanted nuisance for the community, particularly for those with pre-existing respiratory problems such as asthma.”
“The commissioning and release of this study by Forestry Tasmania is another obvious attempt to justify their so-called regeneration burns. That’s despite the Environment Protection Authority identifying numerous breaches of guideline safety levels for particle emissions caused by burn-offs.”
“We need to be working as a community to reduce all smoke emissions and improve air quality. This means that we must work to educate people on the importance of installing heaters that burn efficiently, and comply with Australian standards.”
“Forestry can’t play down the negative impact of its burn-offs. The Greens receive many complaints from people suffering from respiratory problems, such as asthma, who have no option in some cases but to pack up and leave home during the forest burns season.”
“Proper systems need to be put in place, or its time these burns were stopped once and for all.”
2010: Escaped Controlled Burn at Ansons Bay in mid-Summer
.
‘The derived fire location..corresponds to a wildfire at Ansons Bay(north-east Tasmania, near Bay of Fires) , listed on the Tasmanian Fire Service (TFS) webpage on the 23rd of January.
This fire had burnt out 100 ha on 23rd January 2010, and had burnt a total of 200 hectares when reported as extinguished on the 26th.
The fire was reported as an escaped permit burn. The permit burn was ignited on the 22nd of January 2010. The local TFS brigade responded to the wildfire at 14:00 EDT on the 23rd. The wildfire burnt mainly in grassland.
Smoke from a bushfire at Ansons Bay on the 23rd of January 2010 moved westwards towards the Tamar River. The BLANkET air stations at Derby, Scottsdale and Lilydale each detected the smoke as it moved. Ti Tree Bend station(Launceston) and the Rowella station in the lower Tamar also detected the smoke. Derby is approximately 35 km from the fire location, while Ti Tree Bend and the Rowella stations are approximately 100 km from the burn. The peak 10–minute PM2.5 concentrations at these stations were of order 10 to 15 μg m−3.
At Rowella the hourly–averaged PM2.5 reached to near 20 μg m−3 near 21:00 AEST.
[Source: ‘Blanket Brief Report 7: ‘Smoke from a bushfire at Ansons Bay, north–east Tasmania moving into to the Tamar Valley 23rd January 2010’, Air Section, Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Tasmanian Government, February 2011, ^http://epa.tas.gov.au/Documents/BLANkET_Brief_Report_07.pdf, Read Report]
.
.
Tasmanian Forest Industry – its case for burning native forests every year
.
‘The Tasmanian forest industry planned burning program, which includes both burning for forest regeneration, and burning for property protection generally commences in mid-March if conditions are suitable.
.. The Coordinated Smoke Management Strategy developed by the Forest Practices Authority is being used by the Tasmanian forest industry.
As of 2011, all smoke complaints are being received and investigated by the Environment Protection Authority, a Division of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. [Ed. But the EPA has no watchdog besides the community, so it can be as incompetent, as negligent, as complicit, as dismissive, as colluding with its sister Tasmanian Government agencies all it likes. The EPA does not have any law that requires it to be publicly transparent. The photos in this article evidence the Tasmanian EPA as an ineffectual and spurious organisation.]
.
Forest Regeneration
Fire is an important part of the life cycle of Eucalypts. In nature most eucalypt species require the disturbance provided by fire to regenerate. Eucalypt seeds and seedlings need a mineral soil seedbed, abundant sunlight and reduced competition from other plants to establish and grow. In nature this situation is provided by a major wildfire. Tasmanian forest managers mimic nature by using fire in a planned and controlled way to re-establish healthy fast growing trees after harvesting.
Planned burns are part of an industry-wide programme by :
Forestry Tasmania (FT)
The Forest Industries Asssociation of Tasmania (FIAT).
Tasmania Fire Service
Parks & Wildlife Service, Tasmania.
.
Forests & Timber
Forests managed for timber production take more carbon out of the atmosphere over time than unmanaged forests locked up in reserves. Tasmania currently has 47% of forests locked up and unmanaged.
Timber from managed forests is used to build an array of structures from houses to multi-level buildings, sports arenas to architecturally designed public spaces. Timber is light and easy to work with and allows for flexibility and efficiency in design. Timber is warm, aesthetically pleasing and most importantly, renewable. Environments rich in timber have a kinship with nature and make people living and working in them feel at one with the outdoors.
It is so important, in these tough economic times, to use local products. Tasmanian timber produced in the state comes from sustainably managed forests, administered under processes established by Government. In addition, all public and most private forests in Tasmania are third party certified as being sustainably managed by the Australian Forestry Standard. Tasmanian timber is a particularly environmentally friendly choice and we should be using more wood to help combat climate change.
Wood is stored greenhouse gas – held together with stored sunlight. If we are serious about trying to address greenhouse and climate change problems, we should be growing and using more forests, for sustainable energy-efficient products that store carbon and for sustainable biomass-based energy systems.
Harvesting a forest results in the release of some carbon dioxide back into the air from which it came however a considerable portion remains stored in resulting forest products such as furniture, timber for housing and a myriad of paper products.
Ed: Fire is unnatural in old growth wet Eucalypt forests. Many forest plant species are fire sensitive so will not recover in teh evnt of a fire. No fauna are fire tolerant – they either burn to death or die after fire from starvation, exposure or predation. Those who burn forests have no idea of the impacts upon fauna populations, nor the impacts of fire upon biodiversity. Their lay observation upon seeing regrowth of some species is that setting fire to forest habitat must be ok.
Those who perpetuate and extend this myth, fabruicate the notion that fire is healthy and indeed essential for forest regeneration and survival. All new recruits of the Tasmanian Forest Industry, Tasmania Fire Service and Parks & Wildlife Service are duly indoctrinated to this dogma. Of course it is unsubstantiated crap. Al one needs do is walk through an ancient Styx forest that has not been burnt for hundreds of years to disprove the myth.
Those vested interests who stand to profit from deforestation and exploitation of native forests, brandish all protected forest habitat as being ‘locked up’ and ‘unmanaged’. The ecological values of the forests are dismissed as worthless. It is no different to 17th Century traders denied access to Africans for the slave trade.
Timber that is from native old growth forests is not “renewable” unless the industrial logger is prepared to wait 500 plus years to harvest. Logging old growth is eco-theft and irreversibly ecologically destructive.
Tough economic times means that the smart investment is into sustainable industries where there is strong market demand and growth for products not vulnerable to buyer rejection on the basis of immoral sourcing or production.
Biomass-based energy is a technical euphemism for burning forests, which is unacceptable because is causes green house gas emissions. Buring natiuve forests also drive local habitat extinctions.
Use LESS wood NOT more!
2010: Smoke rises into the sky above the Huon Valley in southern Tasmania as the state’s Forestry Department (Forestry Tasmania) conducts fuel-reduction burns on April 18, 2010
[Source: ‘Anger over smoke haze prompts review’ , ABC Northern Tasmania, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/19/2877011.htm?site=northtas]
.
Parks & Wildlife Service – its case for burning native forests every year
.
‘Planned burning is an important part of fire management designed to maintain biodiversity and to reduce the risk posed by bushfires to people, houses, other property and the natural environment. Fire plays a major role in the ecology of the Tasmanian natural environment. Fire can be a vital force in maintaining healthy bush. But in the wrong place at the wrong time, it can also lead to the destruction of unique vegetation communities, human life and property.
Our diverse vegetation communities have differing responses to fire, from potentially devastating impacts in alpine areas and conifer forests, to ecologically sustainable effects in buttongrass moorlands and dry scelerophyll forest. Tasmania’s unique fauna has some interesting adaptations to fire. For some species, it is essential for their habitat requirements.
‘The Parks and Wildlife Service is responsible for the management of bushfires on all reserved land in Tasmania.
This management includes:
control of unplanned bushfires
planned burning to reduce fuel loads and make fire control easier and safer
planned burning to help maintain biodiversity, promote regeneration of plants that depend on fire and to maintain suitable habitat for animals
maintaining assets that assist with bushfire control, for example, fire trails, firebreaks and waterholes.
.
Planned Burning of Tasmania’s National Parks (to date) for 2012
The first planned burn area in the table above labelled as ‘Narawntapu‘ applied to Narawntapu National Park, specifically at Cosy Corner, Bay of Fires Conservation Area, in north-east Tasmania. The ecology is renowned for its Wombats and Tasmanian Devils. Where do they go when Parks Service starts fires?
Tasmania’s famous ‘Bay of Fires’
(Narawntapu National Park)
.
The posted notice read:
‘Parks and Wildlife Service is today (Tuesday 8 May) conducting a fuel reduction burn in the Bay of Fires Conservation Area south of St Helens at the Cosy Corner North campground. The burn is about 20 hectares. The objective is to reduce fuel loads to provide protection for the campground in the event of a wildfire.’
So somehow the planned burn of 20 hectares extended to nearly 800 hectares inside the protected National Park! Was this yet another escaped burn? Where is the ecological report of damage to flora and fauna? So much for the National Parks motto ‘leave no trace’. How hypocritical!
.
“How can walkers help keep Tasmania wild and beautiful?
Leave No Trace is an internationally accepted way of minimising impacts on the places we visit.”
~ Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania
.
The National Park before the burn
.
A wombat in Narawntapu National Park cannot run from fire
.
The Burn Area of nearly 2800 hectares of Tasmania’s National for 2012, translates to 28 square kilometres.This is that aggregate area relative to Hobart – the entire map above!It’s like Hobart’s 1967 Black Tuesday every year in Tasmania’s National Parks
.
Forest Smoke across southern Tasmania, from planned burning, April 2008
.
Tasmania Fire Service – its case for burning native forests every year
.
Ed: It doesn’t just have one programme, but two. One programme to burn native forests every year, the other to slash and bulldoze access to get good access to burn the native forests.
.
Fuel Reduction Programme
‘Each summer, bushfires in our forests pose a significant threat to communities in rural areas, and on the rural-urban interface. Large, uncontrollable bushfires can have serious consequences for Tasmanians. The Tasmanian Government has committed funds towards a program of planned fuel reduction burns to help protect Tasmanians from the threat of wildfires. The program will see the State’s three firefighting agencies, Forestry Tasmania, the Tasmania Fire Service and the Parks and Wildlife Service combine their expertise in a concerted program aimed at reducing fuel loads around the state.
The objective of the inter-agency Fuel Reduction Burning Program is to create corridors of low fuel loads to help prevent large wildfires. The program complements but does not replace fuel reduction burning and other means of fuel reduction close to houses and other assets.’
.
Bushfire Mitigation Programme
‘The Bushfire Mitigation Programme provides funds for construction and maintenance of fire trails and associated access measures that contribute to safer sustainable communities better able to prepare, respond to and withstand the effects of bushfires.
The program is administered by Australian Emergency Management (AEM) within the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department. Tasmania Fire Service is the lead agency in Tasmania for the Bushfire Mitigation Program.
In the 2009 Budget the Australian Government announced funding of $79.3m over four years for a new Disaster Resilience Program (DRP).
The DRP will consolidate the existing Bushfire Mitigation Program (BMP), the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) and the National Emergency Volunteer Support Fund (NEVSF) in an effort to increase flexibility for the jurisdictions and streamline the associated administration for both the Commonwealth and the States and Territories.
The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department is currently working with representatives from each jurisdiction to ensure that the transition to the new DRP is as smooth as possible.
The DRP will commence in 2009-10 and details of the funding arrangements, program guidelines and implementation plans will be announced by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s department and disseminated to the relevant agencies and stakeholders in each jurisdiction in due course.’
Smoke haze from burnoffs pushed Tasmania close to breaching air safety standards last week.
In one 24-hour period, emission levels from the forestry regeneration and fuel-reduction burns “were approaching the standard”, state environmental management director Warren Jones told the Sunday Tasmanian.
Elevated particle levels had been detected in Launceston and Hobart on several days during the week.
A Sunday Tasmanian investigation into the smoke haze has revealed:
Between 5000ha and 7000ha is earmarked for forestry regeneration burns this season.
About 70,000ha of the state’s forest was razed by wildfire in the past summer.
The smoke contains a mix of carbon monoxide, tar, ash, ammonia and known carcinogens such as formaldehyde and benzene.’
The Tasmanian Greens today said that the Parliament needs to commission an independent study into the total social, environmental and economic costs of forestry burns, as they continue to emit pollutants into the air causing distress to the many Tasmanians suffering from respiratory complaints, and also impacting on Tasmania’s clean, green and clever brand.
Greens Health spokesperson Paul ‘Basil’ O’Halloran MP burn-off practice as outdated, old-school and not in line with appropriate practice today, especially when it continues to put thousands of Tasmanians with respiratory complaints in distressing situations. These airborne emissions impact disproportionately on children.
“Once again Tasmania’s beautiful autumn days are blighted by the dense smoke plumes blocking out the sun and choking our air,” Mr O’Halloran said.
“This is an unacceptable situation. It compromises Tasmanians’ health, our environment, and is an insult to common-sense.”
“The Greens are calling for the Minister to commission independent social, environmental and economic impact study of these burns.”
“Tasmania’s tourism industry also has reason for concern over this due to the plumes of smoke that choke up the air sheds and appear as a horrible blight on the Tasmanian Landscape.”
“We also want to see an end to these burns, and are calling on the Minister to consult with the community to establish a date by which this polluting practice will end once and for all.”
“It is also concerning at the impact these burns have on Tasmania’s biodiversity and threatened species such as the Tasmanian Devil, burrowing and freshwater crayfish, and a myriad of other plant and animal species.”
“The annual so-called forest regeneration burns have just commenced with Forestry Tasmania alone intends to conduct 300 coupe burns over five districts, and this will emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change, not to mention the risk this poses for the many Tasmanians who suffer from respiratory complaints such as Asthma,” Mr O’Halloran said.
The Killing of Wild Tasmania – Extinction by a Thousand Fires
.
These photographs provide an illustration of current Tasmanian forestry practices. The photos are from Coupe RS142E, in the upper valley of Tombstone Creek, one kilometer upstream from the Tombstone Creek Forest Reserve in the northeast highlands of Tasmania. Tombstone Creek is a tributary of the upper South Esk River, the headwaters of the water supply for Launceston.
Majestic ancient Rainforest in Tombstone Creek (c.1000 AD to 2006)BEFORE the Tasmanian Government’s State-sanctioned arson
(Photo taken in 2003)
.
AFTER
(Photo taken in October 2006)
‘I first came upon this forest in May 2003, and was so struck by it’s beauty that I made several return visits during the following 12 months. This steep valley-side supported a wet and mossy forest characterized by myrtles, blackwood, tall eucalypt emergents, groves of tree-ferns up to eight meters high and some of the largest sassafras that I have seen anywhere in Tasmania. Many of the sassafras trees had trunk diameters of one meter or more at chest height.
This forest was clear-felled by cable-logging in the summer of 2005 and burnt in an exceedingly hot fire in April 2006. All of the rainforest trees were killed outright. The site is steep and soils are sandy and the valley side was left in a condition which was highly vulnerable to severe soil erosion. This coupe is bordered by some areas that were logged within the last 10 years or so, and the regrowth in these adjacent coupes is a mix of wattle and eucalypt. A narrow strip of rainforest remains at the new coupe’s lowest edge, along Tombstone Creek, but recolonization by the rainforest trees cannot occur, due to the competitive advantage of the eucalyptus and wattles in a full sunlight situation. This is especially so in the context of a drying climate. Simply put, the process enacted here is conversion, in this case from a mature mixed rainforest dominated by myrtle and sassafras, with eucalypt emergents, to an uncultivated crop of wattle and, presumably, the aerially sown eucalypt species.
In this process of conversion, which is far from being confined to this particular coupe, two options are precluded. Firstly, the option for the natural forest to continue to exist for it’s own sake and to develop towards rainforest, a point from which, given the age of the eucalypts, it was not far removed. The second opportunity forgone is for the possibility of alternative uses of species other than wattle and eucalypt, including wood uses, for future generations of people.
Other negative and significant ecological impacts have occurred here, including devastating effects on wildlife, altered hydrology, atmospheric pollution, weed invasion and not least, the release of massive amounts of carbon, previously sequestered within the soil and the living vegetation, into the atmosphere.
The scenes depicted here are all within 100 meters of each other. The forest scenes were photographed in 2003, the other scenes in October 2006.
‘It’s spring, and soon we’ll start to get sensationalist stories predicting a horrendous bushfire season ahead. They will carry attacks on agencies for not doing enough to reduce fuel loads in forests close to homes, for unless those living on the urban fringe see their skies filled with smoke in winter they panic about losing their homes in January.
Fighting fires with fear is a depressing annual event and easy sport on slow news days. Usually the debate fails to ask two crucial questions: does hazard reduction really do anything to save homes, and what’s the cost to native plants and animals caught in burn-offs?
A new scientific paper published in the CSIRO journal Wildlife Research by Michael Clarke, an associate professor in the department of zoology at La Trobe University, suggests the answer to both questions is: we do not know.
What we do know is a lot of precious wild places are set on fire, in large part to keep happy those householders whose kitchen windows look out on gum trees.
Clarke says it is reasonable for land management agencies to try to limit the negative effects of large fires, but we need to be confident our fire prevention methods work. And just as importantly, we need to be sure they do not lead to irreversible damage to native wildlife and habitat.
He argues we need to show some humility, and writes: “The capacity of management agencies to control widespread wildfires ignited by multiple lightning strikes in drought conditions on days of extreme fire danger is going to be similar to their capacity to control cyclones.” In other words, sometimes we can do zip.
Much hazard reduction is performed to create a false sense of security rather than to reduce fire risks, and the effect on wildlife is virtually unknown.
The sooner we acknowledge this the sooner we can get on with the job of working out whether there is anything we can do to manage fires better. We need to know whether hazard reduction can be done without sending our wildlife down a path of firestick extinctions.
An annual burn conducted each year on Montague Island, near Narooma on the NSW far South Coast, highlights the absurdity of the current public policy free-for-all, much of which is extraordinarily primitive. In 2001 park rangers burnt a patch of the devastating weed kikuyu on the island. The following night a southerly blew up, the fire reignited and a few penguins were incinerated. It was a stuff-up that caused a media outcry: because cute penguins were burnt, the National Parks and Wildlife Service was also charcoaled.
Every year since there has been a deliberate burn on Montague, part of a program to return the island to native vegetation. Each one has been a circus – with teams of staff, vets, the RSPCA, ambulances, boats and helicopters – all because no one wants any more dead penguins.
Meanwhile every year on the mainland, park rangers and state forests staff fly in helicopters tossing out incendiary devices over wilderness forests, the way the UN tosses out food packages. Thousands of hectares are burnt, perhaps unnecessarily, too often, and worse, thousands of animals that are not penguins (so do not matter) are roasted. All to make people feel safe. Does the burning protect nearby towns? On even a moderately bad day, probably not. Does it make people feel better? Yes.
Clarke’s paper calls for the massive burn-offs to be scrutinised much more closely. “In this age of global warming, governments and the public need to be engaged in a more sophisticated discussion about the complexities of coping with fire in Australian landscapes,” he writes.
He wants ecological data about burns collected as routinely as rainfall data is gathered by the agricultural industry. Without it, hazard reduction burning is flying scientifically blind and poses a dangerous threat to wildlife.
“To attempt to operate without … [proper data on the effect of bushfires] should be as unthinkable as a farmer planting a crop without reference to the rain gauge,” he writes.
In the coming decades, native plants and animals will face enough problems – most significantly from human-induced climate chaos – without having to dodge armies of public servants armed with lighters. Guesswork and winter smoke are not enough to protect our towns and assets now, and the risk of bushfires increases with the rise in carbon dioxide.
James Woodford is the editor of www.realdirt.com.au.
"We're coming to you from the custodial lands of the Hairygowogulator and Tarantulawollygong, and pay respects to uncle and grandaddy elders past, present and emerging from their burrows. So wise to keep a distance out bush."
Dead fox found near Braeside Track, Blackheath, Blue Mountains in 2006
There was no sign of it being shot. Was it baited?
LHPA Brochure on Foxes
[Source: ^http://www.lhpa.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/434014/Final-foxes.pdf]
Rubber Jaw Leg-Hold Trap
Native Dingo caught in a rubber jaw leg-hold trap
It confirms that trapping is indiscriminate
Recreational shooting of feral animals can attract the wrong mentality
Feral Foxes are healthy across the Blue Mountains
Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area
(Source: New South Wales then Department of Environment and Climate Change, 2007)
(Click image to enlarge)
‘Blue Mountains World Heritage Area’
Listed by UNESCO in 2000 for its unique and significant natural values
(Photo by the Rural Fire Service)
Tiger Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus)
Also known as the spotted-tail quoll (which we consider a rather naff politically correct name)
An endangered carnivore, native to the Blue Mountains and competing with the Dingo and feral fox as the top order predator of the region
(Photo by OzTrek)
.
Click image to enlarge and read
Click image to enlarge and read
And still the fox threat continues unabated
Fox Predation – unequivocal results
Roland Van Zelst, left, Rene Mooejkind and Darren Bain with their night’s haul.
(Photo by Lee Griffith)
The result of just one cull – the scale of the fox problem is rife!
