The following advertisement by Pfizer Australia appeared in The Land newspaper on 22nd September 2011 in the ‘Livestock’ section on page 70. It was promoting Pfizer’s pharmaceutical vaccine product Gudair® Vaccine for the control of Ovine Johnes Disease (OJD) infecting Australian sheep.
The ODJ Menace may well be a threat to sheep flocks, but Wolves have got nothing to do with ODJ nor with Australian sheep!
.
Wolves have got absolutely nothing to do with Ovine Johne’s Disease.
Wolves don’t even exist in Australia. They are native to continental Europe and Northern America where in fact the Gray Wolf continues to be persecuted and where Pfizer is headquartered, in New York City.
Ovine Johne’s Disease is a serious wasting disease that affects a wide range of animals, including cattle, sheep and goats in Australia. It is caused by bacteria (Mycobacterium paratuberculosis) that live mainly in animal intestines but can also survive in the outside environment for several months.
This is the cause of Ovine Johne’s Disease, the bacteria ‘Mycobacterium paratuberculosis’
[Source: ‘Detection of Mycobacterium avium spp. paratuberculosis (Map) in samples of sheep paratuberculosis (Johne’s disease or JD) and human Crohn’s disease (CD) using liquid phase RT-PCR, in situ RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry’, by S. Roccaemail, T. Cubeddu, A.M. Nieddu, S. Pirino, S. Appino, E. Antuofermo, F. Tanda, R. Verin, L.A. Sechi, E. Taccini, A. Leoni published online 20 January 2010, Small Ruminant Research, ^http://www.smallruminantresearch.com/article/S0921-4488%2809%2900292-2/abstract]
.
Pfizer’s advertised image above of an angry Gray Wolf is misleading, grossly inappropriate and unethical. It wrongly and unfairly demonises the wolf species as a predatory threat to Australia sheep. Wolves are not a threat to Australia sheep. They do not exist in Australia.
.
Wolves have been persecuted since before Medieval times in Europe. The feelings of disdain and condemnation they held toward the wolf came from England and other parts of Europe in the form of fables, fairy tales (Little Red Riding Hood), and so-called true stories that sometimes reached mythological proportions. The European hatred of the wolf was the result of much more than fantastical tales of the animal’s criminal nature.
Wolf Prejudice dates back to Little Red Riding Hood A Grimms Brothers fairy tale inculcating the ‘Big Bad Wolf ‘ fear to impressionable children
.
During European colonisation of northern Americas, European puritan Pilgrims thought they had a great moral, religious, and economic duty to subdue the wolf, along with taming the ‘wild west’ wilderness, wholesale deforestation of forests and popping off ‘tribal savages’, otherwise known as Native Americans. The Puritans regarded the wilderness itself as a howling beast, a wolf inspired by the Devil.
So having established the wolf as a representative symbol of unkempt nature, evil, criminality, animalistic desires, and even cruelty, it was natural that America’s newcomers felt a strong moral duty to exterminate wolves. Wolfing, trapping, poisoning, denning, shooting has killed off thousands of wolves. In 1905, cattle ranchers in Montana won passage of a law that required the state veterinarian to infect captive wolves with the sarcoptic mange and release them into wild wolf habitat (Williams 1990).
This irrational cultural hatred of wolves has perpetuated unchecked across northern American through three centuries, forcing the Gray Wolf to the brink of extinction, like the Bison.
The ultimate effect of these predator control campaigns virtually extirpated of the wolf in the United States. In May 1943, the last wolf killed in Yellowstone fell to the rifle of a local cattleman (Loomis 1995). By 1945, the only wolves left in the Western United States were stragglers (Lopez 1978) were all but gone. Except for a small population in northern Minnesota and a few on Isle Royale in Lake Superior, wolves no longer existed in the lower forty-eight states (Lopez 1978).
Gray wolves once roamed the United States from coast to coast and from Canada to Mexico. But in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, wolves were intensively killed in staggering numbers, eradicating them from almost all of the lower-48 by the 1930s. Today, wolves have mounted a comeback, but their recovery is far from certain. Congress, for example, recently kicked wolves in Idaho and Montana off the endangered species list, which opens the door for hundreds of wolves to be killed.
Alaska’s brutal ‘Predator Control Plan’
serving hunters at Nature’s expense – the Grey Wolf is native to Alaska.
The plan has already been in effect for three years, during which time aerial gunners have slain 564 wolves,
all of whom have faced horrors beyond the pale of traditional hunting methods.
[Source: In Defense of Animals, USA’, Read More: ^http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/wildlife/alaskan_wolf.html]
.
Pfizer’s wolf persecuting advertisement incites a public hate message against wolves. It is symptomatic of a Baby Boomer attitude of domination over Nature inherited from ancestral ignorance and perpetuated in childhood by being read ‘Little Red Riding Hood‘ as children. Even in this fairy tale, the wolf was used a a metaphor for evil men. May this Grimms Brothers book be banned for children!
Pfizer management, its advertiser and the owners of The Land newspaper should withdraw the advertisement and make a public apology for denigrating wildlife and perpetuating a primitive fear against Wolves. Pfizer claims that it:
“incorporates protection of the environment, health and safety (EHS) into how we run our business. Environment, Health and Safety policy commitments set our direction and align with our company mission. Our policy is brought to life through strategic and operational decisions made daily by thousands of colleagues, guided by company values and effective management systems.”
This advertisement by Pfizer Australia is obviously unethical and according to me should be banned. As the same European people colonised both America and Australia, the consequences for Indigenous Peoples and native animals and plants were in Australia the same. The fictitious image of the wolf has been transferred on the dingo resulting in its use as a derogative terms and in policies of its eradication.
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.
A well-researched paper exposing the devastating impact of the Tasmanian Forest Industry’s, Parks and Wildlife Services’ and Tasmania Fire Service’s fire management on the ecology of Tasmanian forest. I do fully agree with the editor’s comments. He is very right, such inappropriate fire management is an “endemic practice not only across Tasmania’s remaining wild forests, but throughout Australia” with Victoria carrying the extra brunt of the newly introduced minimum yearly quota of burns irrespective of their impact on the forest ecology.
The following article was initially written by Tigerquoll entitled ‘175,000,000 Kangaroos Required to Support a Vicious Immoral Trade‘ and published on CanDoBetter.net 20100517.
Some claim kangaroo meat is ‘green’. Some even claim killing kangaroos is ‘better’ for Australia’s environment.
So what if Australian farmers of lamb, beef, pork and chicken transitioned to kangaroo? To this author it is like employing mass murderer Ivan Milat to skin platypus for cheap token tourist purses.
Personal bias aside, Australia’s Federal Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, has highlighted the flawed presumptions of Australia’s roo trade as unviable.
“If we’re lucky, it will be many decades before we know whether these judgments are well based,” Dr Henry said of commercial kangaroo harvest quotas in December… “If they are, this will turn out to be the first instance in human history of the sustainable plunder of a natural resource.”
Dr Henry is at odds with prominent ecologists, as well as the economist Ross Garnaut. Professor Garnaut’s 2008 climate-change review made the case for an increased diet of roo displacing cattle and sheep consumption. The Garnaut report cited a study by George Wilson and Melanie Edwards that predicted a 3 per cent drop in greenhouse emissions if roo numbers rose from 25 million to 175 million, pushing cattle and sheep of rangelands, and displacing some red meat consumption.
Critics on the Henry side question the numbers, unconvinced kangaroo meat could ever replace red meat consumption in Australia to any significant degree.
“A lot of the environmental movement supports eating kangaroos, because people think it is green,” said Daniel Ramp, a biologist at the University of NSW helping set up a think tank on the roo industry with the Institute of Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney.
“But we need to follow that argument through and ask how many sheep or cattle we could displace with meat from a kangaroo.”
On Dr Ramp’s figures, if every Australian were to start eating roo regularly, its population would need to swell from about 25 million well into the hundreds of millions and possibly billions.
Industry estimates put the average amount of meat derived from a single roo at 12 kilograms. If a 12-kilogram meat yield provides 48 people with one 250 gram meal, 24 million roos would be needed for everyone in Australia to have one meal a week.
But quotas prevent the industry harvesting more than 15 per cent of the roo population a year, making a population above 160 million necessary. Providing fillets would require many more roos, while maintaining the existing amount of meat that is used for pet-food could push the required population into the billions.
“Imagine if we had 175 million kangaroos running about?” said Dr Ramp. “The environmental degradation would potentially be large and it would not be safe to drive on rural roads for the sheer number of kangaroos.”
.
Standard roo shooter myths need to be debunked such as the false claims that ‘kangaroo meat is ‘green’, better for the environment and could replace farmed livestock outright.
The ethics of killing wildlife still has not been justified by roo shooters.
The ethics of the means of killing kangaroos and their joeys still has not been justified by roo shooters.
The ethics of encouraging a wildlife export trade in kangaroo meat by Anna Bligh to Russia says a lot about Anna Bligh.
The inherent risk of using kangaroo meat for human consumption still has not been justified by roo shooters.
The lack of effective government controls associated with kangaroo killing continues to be ignored by state and federal governments.
.
Red Meat Consumption
.
The debate over whether we should reduce our consumption of meat is warranted, both from an ethical standpoint and an environmental one. If farmers were paid a decent kilogram price for traditional livestock that factored in the cost of land management and rehabilitation on downgraded farmland, the consumption would reduce as it would become unaffordable to most.
The first step is to make livestock (read ‘meat’ – beef, lamb) a gourmet food – high quality and high price – say $40/kg like fillet steak. Market forces would then reduce the demand. Livestock farmers would need to transition to other more sustainable industries (with government subsidy). The primary industry outcome would see a fraction of the current land being used for red meat production. It would be organic, grass feed/ free range, humane and profitable – but government restricted like the abalone industry.
The other strategy is to develop sustainable alternatives that offer natural nutritional equivalents – heam iron, protein, selenium (antioxidant) , zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, Vitamin D and B-group vitamins (riboflavin, niacin, pantothenic acid, vitamin B6 and in particular vitamin B12).
“But Vitamin B12 cannot be found in plant foods, therefore inadequate intakes of B12 are a problem for strict vegetarians. Lacking vitamin B12 can adversely affect neurological function including memory and concentration.” [Meat and Livestock Australia website]
‘Eating kangaroo meat is, by all accounts, much better for the environment than dining on pork, lamb or beef. The natives emit negligible methane, tread lightly and without contributing to erosion, and have no need for vast quantities of feed intensively farmed elsewhere.
Then why is the Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, ardent conservationist, flashing warning signs about the country’s $250 million roo industry?
Twice in the past six months he has highlighted concerns about kangaroo harvesting in his public speeches. And the issue he raised was not the animal welfare charge most commonly levelled – joeys are killed by a blow to the head – but whether the harvesting of roos is viable.
“If we’re lucky, it will be many decades before we know whether these judgments are well based,” Dr Henry said of commercial kangaroo harvest quotas in December.
“If they are, this will turn out to be the first instance in human history of the sustainable plunder of a natural resource.”
Dr Henry is at odds with prominent ecologists, as well as the economist Ross Garnaut. Professor Garnaut’s 2008 climate-change review made the case for an increased diet of roo displacing cattle and sheep consumption. The Garnaut report cited a study by George Wilson and Melanie Edwards that predicted a 3 per cent drop in greenhouse emissions if roo numbers rose from 25 million to 175 million, pushing cattle and sheep off rangelands, and displacing some red meat consumption. Critics on the Henry side question the numbers, unconvinced kangaroo meat could ever replace red meat consumption in Australia to any significant degree.
“A lot of the environmental movement supports eating kangaroos, because people think it is green,” said Daniel Ramp, a biologist at the University of NSW helping set up a think tank on the roo industry with the Institute of Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney.
“But we need to follow that argument through and ask how many sheep or cattle we could displace with meat from a kangaroo.”
On Dr Ramp’s figures, if every Australian were to start eating roo regularly, its population would need to swell from about 25 million well into the hundreds of millions and possibly billions.
Industry estimates put the average amount of meat derived from a single roo at 12 kilograms. If a 12-kilogram meat yield provides 48 people with one 250 gram meal, 24 million roos would be needed for everyone in Australia to have one meal a week. But quotas prevent the industry harvesting more than 15 per cent of the roo population a year, making a population above 160 million necessary. Providing fillets would require many more roos, while maintaining the existing amount of meat that is used for pet-food could push the required population into the billions.
“Imagine if we had 175 million kangaroos running about?” said Dr Ramp. “The environmental degradation would potentially be large and it would not be safe to drive on rural roads for the sheer number of kangaroos.”
Australia’s tradition of the ‘Wood Fire’ is ecologically destructive
.
During Australia’s winter months, many in older homes habitually yearn for the warmth and glow of a traditional Wood Fire, and so utilise their open fire places and wood heaters. So habitually, upon the onset of winter people stock up on Firewood. It is a cultural yearning for the nostalgia of the Wood Fire – warm, earthy, dancing flames, flickering, spark spitting, the woodsmoke – we’ve all been there, it is tantalising and it feels right because it is natural – the ancient campfire tradition across humanity. In doing the Wood Fire ritual, we seek to rekindle our connection to Nature.
The warmth and glow of a traditional Open Fire
…but the demand is driving deforestation of Ironbark Forests
.
In earlier times when a few hundred of us settled in a given forest region, few forest resources were taken and so the forests replenished and seemed to cope. The forests were naturally resilient.
But as subsequent human hoards have invaded the land, and have bred and sprawled across the countryside in the hundreds of thousands, we have deforested entire forests in the process. These forests haven’t coped with the devastation. No forest could cope.
Australia’s native forests have been hacked, logged, burned and bulldozed into agrarian pasture to the horizon. Australia’s original blanket vegetation cover has been reduced to sad islands barely able to support wildlife habitat and in many cases causing extinctions – locally, regionally and nationally. All one needs do is a Google Earth search to appreciate the devastation on the natural landscape.
A legacy of forestry
.
Humanity’s sheer numbers and the encouraged consumption rate of Australians risk exacerbating the deforestation. Contemporary Australia is simply extending and perpetuating the old colonial exploitive mindset and a lifestyle reminiscent of 19th Century invading colonists.
The cultural heritage of the Wood Fire is necessarily contributing to this deforestation, particularly to Australia’s native Box-Ironbark Forests.
For Australians to continue to yearn for the glow, warmth and woodsmoke of the traditional Wood Fire now that we number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, and so the aggregate consumption of timber for firewood has simply become unsustainable. Our native forests have become too small and disparate to sustain wildlife breeding.
The few shrinking native forests that our forebears and their frenzied clearing have left us, simply are disappearing. Australia’s remnant native forests continue to be destroyed by us just to serve this selfish cultural yearning for earthy nostalgia of the Wood Fire. The same applies to all woodheaters.
A classic wood fire in an old style open fireplace
.
The Australian Wood Fire cultural imperative through winter has become a driver of forest extinctions. There have become too many of us wanting tonnes of the forest to burn in our open fires and wood heaters, and too few forests left.
Australia’s firewood demand is driving deforestation. There is estimated to be around 800,000 wood heaters and 700,000 open fire places in Australia (ANZECC, 2001). There combined use is unsustainable and has got to stop! We need to question this inherited and habitual Open Fire/Woodheater culture and the devastating impact it is causing to our native forests.
.
“One of the hidden environmental issues affecting Australia’s woodlands, the collection of firewood, is starting to be revealed. CSIRO has prepared a report, Impact and Use of Firewood in Australia, pointing out alarming environmental problems. For example, up to 6 million tonnes of fuelwood is consumed in Australia each year – double the amount of annual exports of eucalypt woodchips!”
Firewood taken from a native forest for personal use is one thing. The scale and severity of adverse impact upon forest ecology will vary according to the amount taken and the ecological sensitivity of the place it is taken from. Few domestic takers of firewood will be qualified ecologists and so will have no or little comprehension or respect for such impacts.
A private firewood stack
.
According to the CSIRO, up to 5.5 million tonnes of timber is harvested annually for Australian domestic firewood use. When industrial firewood use is included, the total amount rises 20% to between 6-7 million tonnes. This weight is roughly double the amount of eucalypt currently exported annually from Australia as woodchips. About half of all domestic firewood is collected by the consumer and 84% of domestic firewood is collected on private property. [CSIRO, 2000]
Across Australia, access to State Forests is unfettered and the collecting of firewood for personal (domestic) consumption is an uncontrolled free-for-all, little improved from the exploitative mindset of Australia’s early and more ignorant colonists.
Australian colonial ‘progress’
.
Deforestation by firewood taking is perhaps not as broadscale and well known as the Conservation Movement’s exposure of state-sanctioned Industrial Logging by the likes of Australian state government departments:
‘VicForests‘ (Victoria)
‘Forests NSW‘ (New South Wales)
‘Forestry SA‘ (South Australia)
‘Forestry Tasmania‘ (Tasmania)
‘Forests and Wood‘ (Queensland)
‘Forests Products Commission‘ (West Australia)
.
Or is it?
It is Australia’s Commercial Firewood Industry that contributes to the demise of Australia’s remnant native forests by its ‘death by a thousand cuts‘. Commercial Firewood entails the direct taking of wood from Australia’s native forests for commercial sale and profit. It is of a scale far greater than domestic forewood collecting, but where are the statistics kept and publicised by the Australian Government?
Just as demand for firewood drive supply, the artificial low economic cost of firewood encourages demand volume. Since firewood is sold a low cost, it competes favourably with jalternatiuve sources of fuel, such as gas and electricity, for domestic heating. Commercial firewood suppliers also deliberately appeal to the Wood Fire cultural image to encourage their firewood sales. Suppliers and consusmers thus feed off each other at low cost and high volumes, and so more native forests lose out.
A commercial firewood stack
.
The low or no cost availability of timber from State Forests Native timber means that the industry operates on an industrial scale taking vast quantities of timber, particularly from the preferred hardwood Box-Ironbark Forests and the like. The Commerical Firewood Industry is encouraged by the Australian Government and by all state governments, which ignore the practice as if Australia’s natuve forests are unlimited, as if it had no adverse ecological impact upon the forest ecologies, as if it didn’t matter, as if there were no tomorrow.
Commercial Firewood Production
Norwegian Hakki-Pilke industrial machinery enables an industrial scale operation
[Source: Mascus Australia, ^http://www.mascus.com.au/]
.
Across Australia, each state government issues cheap permits for collecting firewood from State Forests.
This reflects:
A cultural disregard for the values of Australia’s disappearing forest ecologies up to Prime Ministerial and Cabinet level
The inadequacies of State laws to protect forest ecology
An antiquainted colonist mindset persisting throughout the dominating Liberal and Labor parties.
.
The ecological impacts and the plethora of ecological advice and warnings about the destructive impacts of logging on forest ecology are being ignored. Australia’s Commercial Firewood Industry fuels demand for cheap firewood and in the process exacerbates Australia’s deforestation.
Australia’s Firewood Industry is unsustainable and has got to be nationally controlled. We need to challenge this exploitative industry and correct ignorant government policies. We need to find alternatives to the Wood Fire to stem the devastation of Australia’s remaining native forests and to help prevent more wildlife extinctions.
.
‘Forest Eco-theft’ involves the immoral taking of timber from a native forest, especially in large industrial quantities, for commercial gain and incurring no or little economic cost to the taker. The intended or actual use of the timber is irrelevent, but may include logs, firewood, craft timber, or woodchips. The greater the timber volume taken, the greater impact upon a forest and so the more serious the Eco-theft.
.
‘Eco-theft’ is only different to criminal theft because of the colonist exploitative mindset of current governments rejecting native forest having ecological value worthy of protection under the Crimes Act.
.
An industrial scale Hakki-Pilke firewood processor from Norway
.
Forest Eco-theft in an environment of dwindling forest habitat has become a key threatening process. At the current rate of Forest Eco-theft, Australia’s native forests fueling our pleasure for earthy glows and hearth warmth, will be gone.
Firewood Logging simply destroys forest habitat and contributes to the demise and local extinctions of threatened and endangered wildlife. Australia’s flora and fauna deaths and ultimate extinctions has become infamy – Australia currently has the worst record of mammalian extinctions on the planet, and the Firewood culture is contributing to it.
Many consumers of firewood either actively couldn’t care, or else passively turn an insular blind eye to the adverse ecological impacts of firewood harvesting. Our Australian Government ignores the firewood deforestation problem, avoiding it for party political convenience – immorally, irresponsibly and unrepresentingly.
Just as Poaching Wildlife is immoral, so too is Forest Eco-theft. Both these exploitative practices hark to colonial times and need to be banned.
Firewood Logging of State Forest near Taralga NSW in 2006.
(along the Goulbourn-Oberon Road, just west of the Blue Mountains)
“This is in the habitat of Diuris aequalis. Had a fair result after two visits to this site and three submissions to local Council. Department of Environment and Conservation have imposed rigid conditions on this business.”
[Source: ‘Habitat – Protection or Destruction‘, 2006, by Alan W Stephenson, Conservation Director, Australian Orchid Council Inc.
^http://www.orchidsaustralia.com/article_%20conservation_no3.htm]
.
.
Why choose ‘Ironbark Firewood’ ?
.
Why choose Ironbark Firewood ? Why not choose an alternative sources of fuel for home heating? Never thought to question the legitimacy of your fuel?
Here’s the justification by one firewood supplier as to why one should choose Ironbark Firewood:
‘Long Burning. Harder to start but will burn 6 – 8 hours. These timbers are the slowest growing and the hardest of all hardwoods.’
‘Very little ash. Clean out fire only once per season approximately.’
‘Strong Burning. Cannot be put out even if the vent closed, unless water is used.’
A classic Ironbark ‘Open Fire’
.
The most common type of firewood commerically sold and promoted in the eastern Australian states is Ironbark Firewood. This is typically sourced from Box-Ironbark Forests (native grassy woodlands).
According to the Firewood Association of Australia (FAA), Ironbark and Box are the preferred firewood in Queensland, while in Victoria, southern NSW and South Australia, River Red Gum is preferred. Jarrah and Wandoo hardwood timbers are preferred in Western Australia, while in Tasmania, Brown Peppermint is considered the best firewood.
Sydney’s Firewood has been linked to ongoing Queensland land clearing, and in Queensland successive backward state governments have an ignoble reputation for land clearing like there’s no tomorrow.
Landclearing in Queensland has become the major supplier of Sydney’s quality firewood. Most of Sydney’s big firewood companies now rely on the Sunshine State for a significant proportion of ironbark and box logs – highly sought-after timbers because of their density. The National Parks Association says firewood from endangered Queensland woodlands is being used in homes across New South Wales.
Back in 2001, the National Parks Association of NSW called on the NSW Government to limit the State’s use of firewood following revelations that most of the wood sold by Sydney’s big firewood companies comes from clearing of Queenslands threatened Ironbark and Box woodlands.
Ironbark Woodland of Central Queensland
[Australia Natural Resource Atlas]
.
At the time, Mr Charlie Spiteri, the owner of Betta Burn Firewood, one of the biggest suppliers in Sydney, refused to reveal how much firewood he supplies each year but estimates that the Sydney region, including Katoomba, consumes about 100,000 tonnes.
Commercial Firewood stockpile
(click photo to enlarge)
.
Spiteri said about a third of his supply was sourced from Queensland, where the wood is worth between $40 and $50 a cubic metre. By the time the freight reaches Sydney, it is worth up to $125 and is being snapped up. “People are choosing ironbark and box and we have to go where the timber is,” Mr Spiteri said.
Other major sources of hardwoods for Betta Burn include the Pilliga State Forest in north-west NSW and private properties in the Nyngan area.
Executive officer at the National Parks Association (NSW), Mr Andrew Cox, said:
“Firewood collecting is the second largest threat to Australia’s temperate woodlands after land clearing. Now its being linked to landclearing!” “We know little about the impacts of firewood collecting and governments have been slow to take an interest. Most firewood consumers are unaware of where their wood comes from or the huge impact it has on threatened animals, birds and reptiles.”
“The firewood industry is large, but mostly unknown”, said Andrew Cox, NPA Executive Officer. “About 1,500,000 tonnes of firewood are used by New South Wales each year, exceeding the State’s yearly combined production of sawlogs and woodchips.”
“Firewood collecting targets slow-growing ecosystems and some of their most important components. Eucalypt species such as ironbark, box and red gum are the most favoured firewood sources.”
“We need to move away from the need to ‘clean-up’ a forest or woodland and instead look at dead wood as an important ecological component – just as important as the living trees.”
“Its because we’re not properly managing the woodlands that a wave of bird extinctions is underway in central NSW. More than 20 woodland dependent birds are declining from their former range and may become extinct in NSW. “It’s not ecologically sound, it’s not sustainable and there are serious impacts on birds, on animals that depend on the hollows.”
But no-one knows for sure how much timber salvaged from the bulldozed woodlands of Queensland is making its way south of the border in convoys of semi-trailers. Firewood collection operates in a legal vacuum – especially on private land – and virtually no figures are kept for where wood is sourced or how it is collected.
[Source: ‘Sydney’s Firewood Linked to Queensland Land Clearing‘, by Andrew Cox, Executive Officer, National Parks Association of NSW, 20010428, ^http://dazed.org/npa/press/20010428firewood.htm]
A typical commercial firewood truck – 2 tonne?
.
Since then, over a decade ago, what has changed? Anything? Nothing? Has the problem gotten worse?
.
83% of the original Box-Ironbark Forests have gone
In Victoria, few forest and woodland ecosystems are as poorly represented in parks and reserves as the distinctive Box-Ironbark ecosystems of northern Victoria.
Since European settlement these forests and woodlands have been extensively cleared and fragmented for agriculture, urban development and gold mining, and cut for a variety of wood products. They once covered three million hectares of northern Victoria, but 83% of the original Box-Ironbark vegetation has now been cleared.
Original distribution of grassy woodlands across New South Wales
(Dominated by Box-Ironbark Forests)
.
Not only have the forests and woodlands been mostly cleared, but what is left is highly modified from its original structure and is also very fragmented. These remaining forests and woodlands are mostly on public land and these areas are ecologically important for a rich diversity of flora and fauna, many of which are rare or threatened.
Box-Ironbark forests and woodlands are highly accessible and the visitor is rewarded by a vibrant array of bird species, carpets of wildflowers in Spring, the rich aroma of eucalypt nectar, and many sites of historical and cultural interest. Despite their apparent uniformity, these forests actually have great diversity with around 1 500 species of higher plants and over 250 vertebrate species recorded in the region; many are largely restricted to Box-Ironbark forests and woodlands.
Some 297 Box-Ironbark plant species and 53 animal species are now classified as extinct, threatened or near-threatened. In addition, at least ten plant and animal species are known to have disappeared from the study area since the 1840s, and numerous others have become locally extinct. It is also clear and of great concern that many species, particularly birds, are known to be still declining.
Accordingly, a key feature of Box-Ironbark nature conservation is the promotion of ‘recovery’ for many species, rather than simply maintaining the status quo. Many Australian animals are dependent upon large, old eucalypt trees which contain the hollows required for shelter and breeding. At least six of the threatened Box-Ironbark fauna species are strongly dependent upon these trees. The massive loss of large old trees over the last 150 years is strongly implicated in the decline of these species and perhaps many others. It is therefore recommended that as well as protecting existing large old trees, additional measures be taken to ensure that there will, over time, be more large old trees in the forests.
Ironbark is a preferred firewood in eastern Australia because it burns longer and hotter, so Australia’s native Ironbark forests continue to be logged for firewood.
Ironbark firewood stack, commercially cut and split ready for domestic delivery
.
The Australian hardwood timber industry now mainly relies upon plantation timbers and sustainable forestry management practices. Australian Ironbark Flooring retails at a premium price at typically over $80/m2 at 19mm thick. If that square meter of flooring was stacked one metre high to achieve a cubic metre, the calculated retail price for a cubic metre would be (1000m/19mm = 50 layers of flooring roughly, making the retail price for a cubic metre of Ironbark flooring around $80 x 50 = $5600/m3!
Expensive Ironbark Flooring
Sourced from sustainable plantation timber, unaffordable to the Commercial Firewood Industry,
so firewood suppliers take the Ironbark out of State Forests instead.
[Source: Northern Rivers Timber, ^http://www.northernriverstimber.com.au/gallery.php]
.
But commercial suppliers of firewood do not own plantation timber, nor do they buy their firewood from plantation timber growers. They certainly do not pay $5,600/m3 for firewood.
Commercial firewood is generally sold at considerable profit at under $160/m3, reducing in price according to volume purchased. Why would an commercial grower of plantation Ironbark hardwood sell the timber for firewood at $160/m3, when as flooring the typical market price is a factor of some 35 times greater at $5600/m3?
.
Commercial Firewood taken from native forests means that the $160 selling price is nearly all profit!
.
Australia’s commercial firewood instead is simply taken from Australia’s native hardwood forests. It is simply taken from State Forests at no cost to the commercial operator, except for a pultry token permit fee. That is why it is sold so cheaply.
This is why firewood remains a cheap affordable source for domestic household heating. But the cost is artifically economic and excludes the ecological cost.
How is this not Forest Eco-Theft? If the suppliers of Ironbark Firewood had to pay hardwood plantation owners a fair wholesale price for firewood, at such a high price their business model would be unviable. Firewood suppliers only exist because their business model relies upon firewood theft from dwindling State Forests, which continues to go unpoliced and ignored by the Australian Government.
Industrial Firewood Industry
.
Where do YOU get your FIREWOOD from?
.
Where do you get your firewood from?
Is it legal or eco-stolen?
Is it accredited?
What is Australia’s Firewood Industry doing to protect Australia’s long exploited and dwindling Ironbark Forests from firewood theft by firewood suppliers?
What is the Australian Government doing to prevent firewood theft from State Forests?
What is the Australian Government doing to monitor and control Australia’s firewood industry?
Who in the Australian Government monitors the integrity and ecological protection of State Forests across New South Wales and indeed across Australia?
Where is the ongoing review and analysis into the ecological health of Box-Ironbark Forests (Grassy Woodlands) across New South Wales and Victoria?
Why are the statistics on firewood theft from State Forests not collected and publicised?
Who polices and penalises deforestation of State Forests?
How many people are caught and fined/gaoled for deforestation of State Forests
Isn’t it illegal to steal firewood from State Forests – living trees or deadwood?
.
At the time of publication of this article, the New South Wales Government’s official website on Environment and specifically on Threatened Species reads:
“There has been a serious system failure on the threatened species website (www.threatenedspecies.nsw.gov.au) and it is no longer available”
Pile of Ironbark Firewood cut and split ready for domestic delivery
.
In the Blue Mountains of New South Wales, the local newspaper advertises numerous suppliers of firewood, particularly at the onset of winter, and particularly promoting Ironbark Firewood as the premium product as follows:
Firewood suppliers advertising in the Blue Mountains Gazette, 20120516
.
But from where do these firewood suppliers source their firewood?
Not one of the above advertisements provides any proud statement about sourcing their wood ecologically responsibly, nor about being ecologically accredited. The default presumption thus is that none of these suppliers is environmentally responsible, nor accredited. So don’t buy from any of them!
Is the advertised firewood sourced illegally from Australia’s disappearing Box-Ironbark Forests, and so exacerbating the deforestation problem? How do we know it isn’t?
How simple is it for any common thief to buy a chainsaw, drive out to a patch of State Forest in a ute or in a truck or with a trailer in tow, then chainsaw several trees in a Box-Ironbark Forest, paying nothing for them, then flog the wood for personal profit? Too easy! Anyone can buy a chainsaw from a local garden tool supplier, even a kid. There are no chainsaw laws in Australia. It is treated like buying secateurs. Bunnings sells cheap chainsaws brand-new for just $200!
So armed with a trailer and chainsaw, a common thief has a lucrative business, one ignored by the Australian Government. With firewood retailing from $160/cubic metre, it is a nice little earner. This exploitative immoral trade in Ironbark Forest ecology is negligently condoned by the Australian Government and state governments.
A native tree cut for firewood (Blackheath Fire Brigade, Rural Fire Service, Blue Mountains, November 2011)
.
‘Forest Eco-theft’ wiping out Ironbark Habitat
.
Logs have life inside
.
‘Collecting firewood is one of humankind’s oldest activities. Australians enjoy the beauty and warmth of a wood fire, and in many regional areas wood fires are the only practical source of heating.
Dead trees, often with hollows, make popular firewood as they are seasoned and burn well. But firewood collection comes at a cost to the environment, the consequences of which may not be entirely understood for years. Many firewood users are unaware of the ecological price of collecting dead trees and fallen logs. Often they mistakenly think they are just keeping the forest or farm tidy.
Firewood harvesting has an effect on our native woodlands, and a variety of threatened species. Dead standing and fallen timber provides crucial habitat for numerous species of animals and birds. It is now recognised that the removal of this wood for firewood is contributing to a significant loss of wildlife, particularly in the woodlands of south-eastern Australia. It is not just native animals that benefit from old wood left lying on the ground. This debris is valuable shelter for stock too. How many times have you found a newborn calf or lamb against an old log safe from the weather?
Habitat Tree of critical value to wildlife…destroyed by Forestry NSW
.
Not only does standing and fallen dead wood provide important habitat for animals and birds, it also plays an essential role in maintaining forest and woodland nutrient cycles. Scientists from the CSIRO believe that dead wood is at least as important as living trees, fallen leaves and soil for the maintenance oif ecological processes sustaining biodiversity.’
[Source: ‘Are you burning their homes to warm yours?‘, a brochure questioning the dependency on firewood), by The National Heritage Trust. The Natural Heritage Trust (the Trust) was set up by the Australian Government under the Natural Heritage Trust Act 1997 to help restore and conserve Australia’s environment and natural resources. The Trust had three overarching objectives: (1) Biodiversity Conservation, (2) Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, and (3) Community Capacity Building and Institutional Change. The Natural Heritage Trust ceased on 30 June 2008. It has been replaced by Caring for our Country, but taking supplanting a natural heritage conservation philosophy with a more anthropocentric utilitarian ‘resource management’ philosopy, ^http://www.nrm.gov.au/]
.
Cleaning up some messy dead timber – through whose eyes? Nature is naturally ‘messy’
.
The Regent Honeyeater has become a ‘flagship species’ for conservation issues in the box-ironbark forest region of Victoria and New South Wales.
Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera-phrygia)
Nationally listed as ‘Endangered‘.
Listed as endangered in Queensland and New South Wales, while in Victoria it is listed as threatened.
[Source: ^http://www.birdsinbackyards.net/species/Anthochaera-phrygia]
.
Australia’s native Regent Honeyeater, was formerly more widely distributed in south-eastern mainland Australia from Rockhampton, Queensland to Adelaide, South Australia, but is now confined to Victoria and New South Wales, and is strongly associated with the western slopes of the Great Dividing Range. Its natural habitat is eucalypt forests and woodlands, including Box-Ironbark Forests.
The Regent Honeyeater has been badly affected by land-clearing, with the clearance of the most fertile stands of nectar-producing trees and the poor health of many remnants, as well as competition for nectar from other honeyeaters, being the major problems. Birds Australia is helping to conserve Regent Honeyeaters as part of its Woodland Birds for Biodiversity project.
‘This report contains the ECC’s recommendations for public land use in the Box-Ironbark area of northern Victoria, extending from Stawell to Wodonga. The recommendations incorporate those for parts of the LCC’s North Central, Murray Valley and adjoining areas.’ (>Read Report, PDF 6.6MB – large file may be slow to load)
How very true – our numbers, our perpetual growth based economy driven decision processes are the main causes of the destruction of our forests’ ecosystems.
Yet, the consequences of our actions have been known to us from at least 1893, when the scientist J. G. O. Tepper warned us that if we want to have a functioning landscape (ecosystem) we should never clear below 30% in the intensive use zone, while in the extensive use zone we should never clear below 50%. But we chose to ignore him as well as more recent warnings from ecologists such as Harry Recher, Ian Lowe and David Suzuki. I wonder how bad the environment will need to become before we wake up to our delusions about the planet we live on and whether it will then be not too late?
just read your webpage – so are there any supliers of firewood that you recommend? The firewood association has a long list but none of them get it from plantations but they do say it is from sustainable practices..is that good enough or would you advise against using even these companies..
In Australia, if firewood is not packed and sealed with a stamped guarantee by the Australian Government as ‘certified plantation timber’, then it is sourced from native forest habitat and so ‘Bad Wood’. And what was there before the plantation?
FAA certification does NOT mean that firewood has NOT been taken from native forests. There is no chain of custody requirement.
Even FSC ‘Forest Stewardship Council’ certification is logging industry value-adding branding that is unenforced and so untrustworthy.
How can timber be less than $160/m3 and not be ecostolen from native forests?
Hi your article makes some good points but is let down by the silly emotive language calling people “common thieves” might make you feel good but you won’t convince people to change by insulting them.
You ignore several basic facts
1) many part of Australia are very cold
2) half of all firewood consumed in Australia isn’t sold commercially but collected by individuals – why – because they can’t afford to buy it. Nor can they afford the cost of electricity or gas
3) people have 3 choices – gas (forecast to more than double in price in next few years in east Coast)and hated by the greens, electricity very expensive and mainly sourced by coal burning – and hated by the greens, firewood – hated by the greens!
4) There IS a great alternative that has to be exploited being the many tens of thousands of hectares of plantation bluegum which is not good for most hardwood timber/furniture uses, the woodchip industry is on it’s ass. replacing traditional slow growing s[pecies like ironbark and redgum with this is the answer
If a farmer plants out timber for future harvest on run down property, then firewood harvest is a legitmate business.
But the low price firewood retails for, makes such a legitimate business unviable.
So common thieves steal firewood from native forests – State Forests, National Parks, private property that contains native bushland.
Show us certified firewood. It is all thieved, and users are receiving stolen goods.
Living in cold climates is a choice in Australia. Start with passive solar design, thermal insulation, draft prevention – all technologies that are proven these days.
Hardwood native forests like Ironbark and Redgum are disappearing because of archaic nostalgic yearning for woodsmoke. It is as selfish and short-sighted as ripping up the neighbour’s verandah to stoke one’s fire to keep warm for a few nights.
Myrtleford’s 200+ year old River Red Gum
(Eucalyptus camaldulensis)
.
Native to riverine valleys particularly of heavy clay soils along river banks and on floodplains subject to frequent or periodic flooding across riverine northern Victorian and southern New South Wales.
.
Most Australian trees, like native Australians, have otherwise been despised and slaughtered by Colonists…
Indigenous Australians
.
The township of Bright before the exotic trees.In the 1890s when colonial miners exploited North East Victoria..the Red Gum would have been just 80 years old.
.
.
The ‘Penny Tree’
[Fumina, East Gippsland, Victoria, 1908]
.
..”As a result of the devastating bush fires which raged through Gippsland some 18 months ago, this Settler in the Fumina district was unfortunate enough to lose his home, and afterwards took shelter in this big hollow tree.
The space available was enough for 2 large beds, tables, chairs and sundry other furniture. Under the deft fingers of “The Lady of the Tree” it soon transofrmed into a comfortable home for the Family, until eventually replaced by a 6 roomed home some time later.”
I hope that you suceed in keeping Cartage Australia out of the Blue Mountains.
We have the six axles here in Victoria and most believe that there should not be allowed on the roads. It’s been said that they get special treatment from VicRoads.
This again is an excellent article. The photographs express better than words the extent of the environmental damage we have done – it is so very true, what you say, that “Most Australian trees, like native Australians, have been despised and slaughtered by Colonists…”.
As Deborah Bird Rose points out in her book “Reports from a Wild Country: ethics for decolonization”, “settler societies are built on a dual war: a war against Nature and a war against the natives”(p.34) “starting with an initial premise that conquest was always meant to be complete, we know that the conquest of Indigenous peoples, like the conquest of Nature, was undertaken in a mode of replacement. From the first it was imagined as a project that would be finished when the replacement was fully accomplished” (p.2), and this still continues today with the difference that more and more people are fighting against it.
‘Tarkine Tasmania: wild, unique, diverse’
(A photographic essay of exploration into this unique wilderness)
Images and text courtesy of Jenny Archer and Jen Evans
Purchase book: ^http://www.tarkineimages.com.au/purchase.html
[$5 from every copy sold will be donated to the Tarkine National Coalition – an organisation committed to protecting the Tarkine]
.
The unique Tarkine
.
Tasmania’s Tarkine Wilderness is one of the few remaining wild temperate rainforest regions left on the planet!
‘The Tarkine‘ is named after the Tarkiner people who traditionally inhabited the region from 30,000 years ago. It stretches from Tasmania’s wild coastline to the west, the Arthur River to the north, the Pieman River to the south, and the Murchison Highway to the east.
The Tarkine contains remarkable natural and cultural values, including one of the world’s most significant remaining tracts of temperate rainforest. The Tarkine covers an expansive 447,000 hectare (4,470 km2) wilderness region of recognised World Heritage significance up in the North-West corner of Tasmania, containing the largest temperate (Myrtle-Beech) rainforest in Australia.
Tasmania’ Tarkine Wilderness is indeed ‘wild, unique and diverse‘.
Myrtle Beech (Nothofagus cunninghamii)
An evergreen tree native to Victoria and Tasmania, but hardly any now left in Victoria.Typically grow to 30–40 metres (98–130 feet) tall
.
The Tarkine is the largest surviving region of Nothofagus Forest left on the planet
.
The Tarkine compared internationally
.
‘The Tarkine‘ is the same size as internationally well-respected national parks:
New Zealand’s Kahurangi National Park (4,520 km2)
United States’ Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona (4,927 km2)
Indonesia’s Tanjung Puting National Park in southern Borneo (4,150 km2)
Scotland’s Cairngorms National Park (4,528 km2) …per map below:
Scotland has a Tarkine wilderness equivalent – ‘Cairngorms’ .. respected as a National Park
.
Rare ancient Caledonian Forest in Cairngorms National Park, Scotland
(the same size as Tasmania’s Tarkine)
The Cairngorms National Park is special because it contains the best arctic-alpine landforms, habitats and species in Britain. This is one of the few places where wild nature is so easy to see and many of the plants and animals living here are at the extreme edges of their geographical ranges.
Compare TheCairngorms with The Tarkine of a similar size. The Tarkine is a relict from the ancient super-continent, Gondwanaland, characterised by highly diverse ecosystems from giant ancient forests to huge sand-dunes, sweeping beaches, rugged mountains and pristine river systems. [Sources: ^http://tarkine.org/, ^http://www.corinna.com.au/Story/Tarkine.aspx]
The Tarkine has more than 400 species of diverse flora, including a range of native orchids and many rare and threatened species. There are more than 250 vertebrate species of fauna, 50 of which are rare, threatened and vulnerable.
These include:
Spotted-tailed Quoll
Tasmanian Devil
Eastern Pygmy Possum
Wedge-tailed Eagle
White-breasted Sea Eagle
Grey Goshawk (white morph)
Giant Freshwater Lobster
Orange-bellied Parrot (on the brink of extinction)
.
A now ‘Endangered‘ Tasmanian Devil captured on motion-sensitive camera
Walkers join forces with conservationists through Tasmania’s remote Tarkine rainforest to help bring the Tasmanian Devil back from the brink of extinction.
[Source: ‘Tourists to use cameras to help save Tasmanian Devil’ by Dominic Bates, The Guardian (UK), guardian.co.uk, 20120203, Read More: ^http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/03/tourist-cameras-save-tasmanian-devil]
(Photo courtesy of Tarkine Trails, Feb 2012)
.
The Cairngorms are similarly ancient, a glacial landscape formed 40 million years before the last Ice Age. The area also features a rare ancient woodland, the Caledonian Forest, as well as unique alpine semi-tundra moorland habitat.
The moorland provides important habitat to many rare plants, birds including Ospreys, breeding Ptarmigan, Dotterel, Snow Bunting, Golden Eagle, Ring Ouzel, and Red Grouse, with Snowy Owl, Twite, Purple Sandpiper and Lapland Bunting seen on occasion. The Caledonian Forest supports rare birds such as the endangered Capercaillie and endemic Scottish Crossbill (found nowhere else on the planet), the Parrot Crossbill and the Crested Tit.
The Scottish Crossbill..unique to the Cairngorms
.
The Cairngorms is also home to:
Red Deer
Roe Deer
Mountain Hare
Pine Marten
Red Squirrel
Wild Cat
Otter
as well as the only herd of Reindeer in the British Isles..
Meanwhile, The Tarkine is home to more than 130 different species of birds during the seasons throughout its variety of habitat types and landscapes. This includes eleven of Tasmania’s twelve endemic birds. The two migratory species that breed only in Tasmania, the ‘Endangered‘ Swift Parrot, and the ‘Critically Endangered‘ Orange-bellied Parrot, forage in the Tarkine.
Orange–bellied Parrot (Neophema chrysogaster)
critically dependent upon The Tarkine
In 2010 it was ranked by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Services as one of the world’s rarest and most endangered species and “on the brink of extinction“
.
Orange-bellied Parrot numbers down to about 20 individuals in existence!
Watch ABC News ^Video (February 2012)
The Orange-bellied Parrot breeds in south-west Tasmania and migrates along the west coast (The Tarkine) and forages on coastal plants. Consequently the Tarkine’s coastal vegetation is extremely important habitat. The endangered Swift Parrot breeds predominantly in south-east Tasmania and feeds on the nectar from the Tasmanian Blue Gum, and in the Tarkine, the Swift Parrot forages on these trees during the post-breeding dispersal and migration season.
The Tarkine’s bird species richness is correlated to the Tarkine’s rich habitat diversity; the sea, coastal shores, freshwater wetlands, streams and estuaries, heathland-moorland mosaic of the coastal plains, woodland and open forests, wet eucalypt forests, mixed forest and extensive rainforest.’
The Cairngorms ecological values were recognised and protected as a National Park (NP) by the new Scottish Parliament in 2003. [Read More: ^www.cairngormscampaign.org]
But unlike the Cairngorms NP, Kahurangi NP, Grand Canyon NP and Tanjung Puting NP, just less than 5% of The Tarkine is protected as a National Park. Within the Tarkine region’s 4,470 km2, recognised as bounded by the coast to the west, the Arthur River to the north, the Pieman River to the south, and the Murchison Highway to the east, only Savage River National Park (180km2) , less than 5% of The Tarkine, provides any formal ecological protection.
The ‘Donaldson River Nature Recreational Reserve’, the ‘Meredith Range Recreational Reserve’ and the Arthur Pieman Conservation Area within The Tarkine offer no formal ecological protection and are open to mechanised recreational abuse. See map below. Propaganda by vested interests would have many believe that these reserves offer sufficient ecological protection, but such reserves permit multiple uses – motorised vehicular access including off-road, as well as road making, logging, burning, mining, poaching of wildlife, fishing, farming and tourism development – so effectively offering no ecological protection.
[Read the propaganda in The (Launceston) Examiner newspaper: ‘Mining heritage’, 20110320, ^http://www.examiner.com.au/news/local/news/environment/mining-heritage/2108235.aspx?storypage=0]. The Examiner threatened: “If successful the campaign of the Tarkine National Coalition will perpetrate an injustice on local people leading to negative impacts on both the Tasmanian economy and the quality of life of its people.”
What scaremongering crock! But then who are the readership and who are the sources of advertising revenue of The Examiner?
Savage River National Park is described by the Tasmanian Government’s Parks and Wildlife Service as follows:
.
‘Savage River National Park is a wilderness region in the north west of Tasmania. The park protects the largest contiguous area of cool temperate rainforest surviving in Australia and acts as a refuge for a rich primitive flora, undisturbed river catchments, high quality wilderness, old growth forests, geodiversity and natural landscape values.
The western portion of the park includes the most extensive basalt plateaux in Tasmania that still retains a wholly intact forest ecosystem. The upper Savage River, which lends the park its name, runs through a pristine, rainforested river gorge system. The park contains habitat for a diverse rainforest fauna and is a stronghold for a number of vertebrate species which have suffered population declines elsewhere in Tasmania and mainland Australia.
The parks remoteness from human settlement and mechanised access, its undisturbed hinterland rivers and extensive rainforest, pristine blanket bog peat soils and isolated, elevated buttongrass moorlands ensure the wilderness character of the park. Like the vast World Heritage listed Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area to its south, the area is one of the few remaining temperate wilderness areas left on Earth.
Unlike other national parks, Savage River National Park remains inaccessible. In keeping with its wilderness character, there are no facilities and no roads or mechanised access to the park. However, the park is surrounded by the Savage River Regional Reserve, in which a number of rough 4WD tracks provide limited access. To the north of the reserve, a number of State Forest Reserves can be accessed by standard vehicles. They offer an insight into the magnificent rainforest ecosystem that lies to the southeast within the Savage River National Park.’
But the above description is only a tiny snapshot of The Tarkine
The Tarkine still is undoubtedly one of the World’s great wild places
Giant Eucalyptus regnans of The Tarkine (click image to enlarge)
.
The Tarkine’s World Heritage significance
.
The Tarkine is a region of recognised World Heritage significance. It’s wilderness, vast rainforests, wildlife, landscapes and unique Aboriginal values are outstanding on a world scale.
However, the Tarkine is not protected as a National Park nor listed on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Only a fraction, less than 5%, of the Tarkine region is fully protected as a National Park. This means that many of the Tarkine’s outstanding natural and cultural values, are in dire peril due to repeated exploitation demands from industrial logging and more recently industrial mining.
These industrial threats mean that The Tarkine ecology could be lost forever!
Logging legacy in The Tarkine
.
Attempts have been made to have The Tarkine listed not only as a National Park, but also as a World Heritage Listed Area.
Local conservation champions of The Tarkine, the Tarkine National Coalition (TNC) have produced an extensive proposal that would protect the Tarkine and its unique values as a National Park and World Heritage area, for all people, for all time, just like Kakadu NP and Cairngorms NP.
The Tarkine would become recognised as one of Australia’s great iconic wild places, allowing locals, visitors, walkers, photographers, scientists, the Aboriginal community and tourists alike to see, visit and experience this unique place.
A number of prominent bodies have recognised the World Heritage significance of the Tarkine:
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (1990)
The Tasmanian Department of Parks, Wildlife & Heritage (1990)
The Australian government recognised the Tarkine’s outstanding national significance through listing the Tarkine on the register of the National Estate Leading Tasmanian & Australian environment groups (including The Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation, amongst a wide range of others)
The Australian Senate formally and unanimously recognised the World Heritage significance of the Tarkine (2007).
For the Tarkine to be inscribed on the World Heritage list, it would need to be formally put forward to UNESCO (the United Nations Body) by the Australian Government. Yet, there has been a failure by successive Environment Minister’s to instruct the Australian Heritage Council to commence assessment of the World Heritage values contained within the Tarkine.
The natural ecological wealth of Tasmania’s Tarkine Wilderness
(Arthur River rainforest, Photo by Ted Mead)
.
On 11 December 2009, Australia’s Environment Minister (then Peter Garrett MP) entered The Tarkine in Australia’s National Heritage List under the emergency listing provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This emergency listing lapsed in December 2010.
The Australian Heritage Council has since completed a preliminary assessment of The Tarkine and found that The Tarkine might have one or more National Heritage values. It is now up to Australia’s Environment Minister (currently Tony Burke MP) to decide whether The Tarkine, or areas within it, should be listed of Australia’s National Heritage List. So, the fate of this magnificent wild region, effectively Australia’s Amazon, rests with one man, Tony Burke MP.
Despite The Tarkine’s many unique ecological values, there are some who chose to ignore and dismiss The Tarkine for their own self-serving gain. Industrial Miners are seeking to plunder The Tarkine for minerals below ground. If these miners get their way, they will open cut The Tarkine and irreversibly destroy it. The Tarkine’s natural future as a wild region and its dependent wildlife hang in the balance.
Currently limited mining occurs within parts of the Tarkine. The most significant mining operations within the Tarkine region is the Savage River Iron Ore Mine, which is currently managed by Grange Resources, and the Hellyer Mine managed by Bass Metals.
Now there are another 10 new mines proposed to destroy The Tarkine!
.
Tasmanian Government’s mining leases (Dec, 2012) threaten to destroy most of The Tarkine
.
Nine of the planned ten mines are nearby Savage River ‘open-cut’ style mines. The Tasmanian Government under the watch of Labor’s Bryan Green MP has overseen its Tasmanian Mineral Council grant some 56 exploration licences over the Tarkine to 27 different industrial mining companies.
Savage River Mine location map..already in The Tarkine
.
Savage River Open Cut Mine..a harbinger for The Tarkine… landscape absolute anhiliation
.
Savage River – a savage scar in The Tarkine..courtesy of industrial miner Grange Resources
(Google Earth – click image to enlarge)
.
Venture Minerals‘ proposed Tin Mine at Mount Lindsay (2011)
.
West Australian headquartered Venture Minerals has submitted mining permits to the Tasmanian Government to allow it to develop a tin/tungsten open cut mine at Mount Lindsay, so it can sell Tasmanian resource wealth to China. It will extend over 36,000 hectares (360 km2), creating a permanent scar through The Tarkine, roughly an area the size of the Tamar Valley from Launceston to Georgetown.
Mount Lindsay Tin Mine Plans (Venture Minerals)
.
“The Mount Lindsay mine is a Pilbara style open cut super pit that will devastate a large area of the Tarkine rainforest wilderness within an existing reserve. The 3.5 x 3km disturbance area is the equivalent of 420 Melbourne Cricket Grounds and a 220m depth being over twice the height of the Sydney Harbour Bridge,” said Tarkine National Coalition spokesperson Scott Jordan.
“It is completely inconsistent with the protection of the Tarkine, and Minister Burke must act immediately to ensure that the Tarkine has the highest level of protection going into this assessment.”
Venture Minerals plans to rely on Tasmanian hydro power (probably at a government subsidised discount and so further reducing the power available to Tasmanian residents). Tasmania’s precious natural heritage is pillaged to make West Australian and foreign corporate investors richer.
Shree Minerals proposed open-cut mine at Nelson Bay River (2011)
.
Shree Minerals wants an open cut mine on the upper reaches of Nelson Bay River. According to the Tasmanian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Shree Minerals Ltd has proposed to develop an open pit magnetitie/hematite mine and processing plant near Nelson Bay River, approximatley 7 kilometres east of Temma in northwest Tasmania. The proposed mine will target 4 million tonnes of the resource over a 10 year period producing 150,000 tonnes of product per year.
Shree Minerals is an Indian company based in Madhya Pradesh in central India [Read More: ^http://www.shreemineralsandfuels.com/] So Tasmania’s precious natural heritage is pillaged to make Indian billionaires richer.
It has found to give scant regard to protecting fragile ecology in The Tarkine. Shree Minerals’ Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Nelson Bay River open cut iron ore mine as a mismatch of omissions, flawed assumptions and misrepresentations, according to the Tarkine National Coalition.
Key data on endangered orchids is missing
Projections on impacts on Tasmanian devil and Spotted tailed quoll are based on flawed and fanciful data
The EIS produced by the company as part of the Commonwealth environmental assessments has failed to produce a report relating to endangered and critically endangered orchid populations in the vicinity of the proposed open cut mine. The soil borne Mychorizza fungus is highly succeptible to changes in hydrology, and is essential to the germination of the area’s native orchids which cannot exist without Mychorizza. Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke included this report as a requirement in the project’s EIS guidelines issued in June 2011.
Shree Minerals have avoided producing scientific claiming that its proposed 220 metre deep hole extending 1km long will have no impact on hydrologyor on cthe adjacent Nelson Bay River.
Data relating to projections of Tasmanian devil roadkill from mine related traffic are flawed. The company has used a January-February traffic surveys as a current traffic baseline which skews the data due to the higher level of tourist, campers and shackowner during the traditional summer holiday season. DIER data indicates that there is a doubling of vehicles on these road sections between October and January. The company also asserted an assumed level of mine related traffic that is substantially lower than their own expert produced Traffic Impact Assessment. The roadkill assumptions were made on an additional 82 vehicles per day in year one, and 34 vehicles per day in years 2-10, while the figures the Traffic Impact Assessment specify 122 vehicles per day in year one, and 89 vehicles per day in ongoing years.“When you apply the expert Traffic Impact Assessment data and the DIER’s data for current road use, the increase in traffic is 329% in year one and 240% in years 2-10 which contradicts the company’s flawed projections of 89% and 34%”. “This increase of traffic will, on the company’s formulae, result in up to 32 devil deaths per year, not the 3 per year in presented in the EIS.”
“Shree Minerals either is too incompetent to understand it’s own expert reports, or they have set out to deliberately mislead the Commonwealth and State environmental assessors.”
Nelson Bay River flows through pristine wildernessIndustrial Miners just don’t get it!
[Source: http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au (Nelson Bay Report on water quality monitoring – >Read Report]
.
In 2011, a visit to the Shree Minerals’ Nelson Bay River proposed mine site in the Arthur Pieman Conservation Area has discovered that the mining company has failed to cap at least nine drill holes, creating risks to the resident population of disease free Tasmanian devils.
Failing to cap drill holes is a serious breach of both the Mineral Exploration Code of Practice and the operating conditions of their Exploration License. If Tasmanian devils are found to have perished in the holes, the company may be in breach of the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995.
Shree Minerals carving up wilderness across The Tarkine, even before mining commences
.
Even before actual mining commences, mineral exploration causes its own destructive impacts upon fragile ecosystems:
New access roads are bulldozed through pristine wilderness to multiple exploration and drilling sites.
Native vegetation and dependent ecology is destroyed as gridlines are bulldozed
Fragile top soils are removed
Soil erosion occurs at drills sites as soon as it rains, and rainfall is particularly intense across western Tasmania
The eroded soil becomes sediment and chokes and pollutes nearby watercourses and further downstream
Exposed soils also erode into watercourses, and without topsoil the native vegetation is unable to recover
Rubbish is dumped
Spills of chemicals and pollutants from drilling contaminate crystal pure watercourses and permeate into ground water and aquifers
Spread of pests including plant diseases such as myrtle wilt is exacerbated
Drill holes into ground water disturb and alter aquifers causing unknown impacts particularly in karst areas, which are prevalent across The Tarkine
.
These impacts are ignored by industrial miners.
Industrial Miners eco-raping the fragile Tarkine
Wam, bam thank you mam!
.
Tasmania’s Minerals Council – one eyed to pillage
.
The Tasmanian Minerals Council exists so that Tasmania may be mined. Irrespective of what values are on the surface, the Tasmanian Minerals Council sees Tasmania as a quarry to be exploited. If it is not mining Tasmania, or talking about current and planned mines, or encouraging more mining of Tasmania, then it simply isn’t doing its job putting its very existence into question. Its mandate is one eyed.
Just as Forestry Tasmania is the industry driver of logging of Tasmania’s native forests, the Tasmanian Minerals Council is the industry driver of mining Tasmania’s native forests – same destructive outcome, just different type of industrial exploitation. Both are tacit Tasmanian government departments only with corporatised names and structures. See a map of Tasmania through the eyes of the Tasmanian Minerals Council below:
Quarry Map of Tasmania
.
Tasmanian Minerals Council describes itself as “the representative organisation for the exploration, mining and mineral processing industries in Tasmania“. It counts among its members all of the main mines and mineral processing operations. So basically it is the Tasmanian Government’s Department of Mining, but named a ‘council‘ in order to convey a public impression of being an industry body, whereas it is just a policy arm of government.
And the board of directors are all executives employed by industrial miners. They each have vested interests in mining Tasmania for their own company benefits, and collectively to maximise the exploitation of Tasmania for mining. It is cosy chronyism, and accountable to the broader Tasmanian community.
Terry LongTasmanian Minerals Council current CEO
Capable of seeing Tasmania only through miner’s subterranean eyes
“You wouldn’t want to contemplate a Northern Tasmania economy without Temco (an industrial manganese-alloy smelter operation) and Bell Bay Aluminium”
To justify its existence the Tasmanian Minerals Council thinks it and mining Tasmania is very important.
“The minerals industry is the cornerstone of Tasmania’s economy. It is important to the lives of every Tasmanian and brings with it a rich economic and cultural heritage and a capacity to ensure a prosperous future for Tasmania.”
.
The Tasmanian Labor Party (currently in government) and the Tasmanian Liberal Party both see mining as important to Tasmania because of the mining royalty revenue derived by the Tasmanian Government. Of course it is about money.
To be politically correct, the Tasmanian Minerals Council professes a catchphrase: “promoting the development of safe, profitable and sustainable mineral sector operating within Tasmania“. It may be sustainable, but sustainable for industrial miners, not Tasmania’s ecology.
It sees itself playing a role in developing the world’s natural resources to supply the demands of modern society, by digging up more of Tasmania. It says that it recognises modern societal expectations of good environmental management and claims that it is ensuring environmental impacts are minimised. It promises that ongoing problems from old mining operations in Tasmania will be rectified if possible. It talks about following a ‘Code for Environmental Management‘ and about observing a set of principles and encourages continual improvement for environmental performance, and indeed broadened the Code to encompass goals and actions that are more representative of a sustainable development framework.
Wonderful motherhood stuff, except the mining reality across Tasmania is completely different.
2011: Sludge from the Aberfoyle Mine runs into the river at Luina (Savage River National Park)..in The Tarkine
(Photo by Peter Sims, Fairfax)
Queenstown’s sulphuric acid legacy of copper mining
..no plans to rehabilitate the moonscape.
.
The confluence of the King River and Queen River, a few years ago.
Orange-coloured heavy metal toxins from Queenstown and Mt Lyell copper mining continue to flow into Macquarie Harbour.
No effort is made by the Tasmanian Minerals Council to rehabilitate these wild rivers.
Says the Council: “It was established well before the understandings and knowledge we have now, and the practice we expect today. The legacy from the old surface workings will be carried for a long time..”
And this council want more mines in The Tarkine?
‘Past damage caused from mining around Queenstown was a product of its times, although present and future generations live with its legacy. Historical practice is not modern practice. Mt Lyell Mine’s holocaust landscape legacy is testament to a past that did not have the technological knowledge or environmental vision we have today. The economic imperative was the main consideration.’
[Source: A mining propaganda brochure produced by The Tasmanian Mineral Council in 2004 entitled ‘Wilderness, Rivers and Mines – The West Coast Experience‘, ^http://www.tasminerals.com.au/west-coast.pdf]
What has changed? Nothing.
.
Tasmanian Minerals Council – ‘Group-Serving Bias’ Syndrome
.
Head in the ground, the Tasmanian Minerals Council is functionally fixed on the view that Tasmania exists so that it man be mined for profit.
The Tasmanian Minerals Council and its mining fraternity suffer from Group-Serving Bias – the tendency to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to the interests of miners, while auto-dismissing conservationists’ ecological concerns. They see themselves as unaccountable to the Tasmanian public – only to the government and mining vested interests.
The plethora of evidence showing the mining industries destructive impacts on the natural landscape and irreversible harm caused to wildlife and its habitat are ignored by industrial miners and the Tasmanian Minerals Council. The devastating moonscape and dead river legacies of mining across Tasmania are conveniently dismissed by the Tasmanian Minerals Council as ‘history’.
Those careered into the exploitative cultures of Industrial Logging and Industrial Mining, ignorant of Ecology, fail to respect vital and rare natural values even when immersed in a pristine and rare region like The Tarkine.
Why?
Industrialists during their working lives culturally learn a perception bias to dismiss Nature not as integrated Natural Assets, but as untapped Resources waiting to be exploited and profited for industrial gain.
This is an Industrial World View that emanated out of the Industrial Revolution in early 18th Century Britain. Industrialism has become synonymous with Human Progress and has exponentially grown into what has become known as 20th Century global multinational industrialism. Multinational Industrialism is all about large scale efficient exploitation of resources – Natural or Human in order to maximise self-serving interests. On a local level, this translates into exploitation. The Industrial World View is locally destructive, selfish, arrogant and short-sighted. The Tasmanian Minerals Council continues as a legacy of that time..
Scott Jordan of Tarkine National Coalition at the so-called “rehabilitated” tailings dam at a tin mine in The Tarkine.
.. would mining executives drink this brown toxic, acidic, heavy metal water?
This is the Tasmanian Mineral Council being ‘sustainable‘ – they just don’t get it!
.
Tasmanian Mineral Council’s public image spin-doctoring claims that the Tasmanian mining industry did not have a good history when it came to good environmental management. Environmental awareness began to rise around the world in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Until then, the environmental performance of both industry and individuals was often poor, when measured against today’s standards.
Crap!
The Tasmanian Minerals Council does not recognise The Tarkine. Instead, it sees the west coast of Tasmania being “world famous for its geology and mineralisation and world class mineral deposits lie in an arc of volcanic lavas from Low Rocky Point in Tasmania’s South West, northwards through the great mining areas of Mt Lyell, the Dundas mineral field, Henty, Zeehan mineral field, Renison Bell, Rosebery, Tullah, Que River and Hellyer then eastwards to the Moina mineral field near SheffieldSuper…”
What Tarkine? What forests, where?
This year, the Tasmanian Minerals Council encouraged by the Labor Party’s pro-industrialist, Bryan Green MP, is ramping up mining activity, particularly in The Tarkine. Bryan Green is currently Tasmania’s Deputy Premier and Minister for Primary Industries, Water, Energy, Resources, Local Government, Planning, and Racing.
Bryan Green and Tasmanian Minerals Council are in a froth at present with ‘almost 80 companies spending a record $38.7 million last year looking for the mines of tomorrow’. Drill rigs are humming on many of the 194 exploration licences held by these companies and another 15 licences are pending approval’ – reports the Hobart Mercury newspaper.
Spending on exploration has now rebounded to above pre-global financial crisis levels and several projects have progressed to the point where new mining jobs are on the horizon.
Mining hopefuls are shoring up iron and tin deposits on the West Coast, while others are looking deeper into coal proposals at Fingal and silica projects at Maydena.
Venture Minerals is progressing its iron and iron, tungsten and tin mine at Mount Lindsay outside Burnie and Shree Minerals is working to get its iron ore mine running at Nelson Bay River, in the Tarkine.
Shree Minerals is one of about 20 companies with their eyes set firmly on the mining potential in the Tarkine, as conservationists are working to have the area protected through a Natural Heritage listing. Ultimately, green groups want the area to become a national park, which would stop mining development in its tracks.
At Zeehan, Melbourne-based company Stellar Resources is spending $6 million on a year-long drilling program as it progresses its plans to construct a $108-million tin mine and processing plant.
Stellar Resources chief executive Peter Blight said the company hoped to move into construction in 2014 and start producing tin concentrate in 2015. He said the company was excited by its Heemskirk Tin project which it took on as a solo venture last year.
The area has been investigated for its mineral potential before first by the West Coast’s mining pioneers and more recently by Aberfoyle. When Western Metals took over Aberfoyle, the Zeehan tin project sat in the bottom of a drawer.
But Mr Blight said early drilling and scoping studies looked promising and he expected to be working on financing the project by the end of next year.
Demand for tin continues to increase as the world shuns lead solder. Right now, there is a 70,000-tonne gap between global tin demand and supply.
When developed, the Heemskirk project would produce almost 4000 tonnes of tin concentrate a year and be only the second tin mine in Australia.
The other, Renison Bell, is just 18km away from Zeehan.’
This is an excellent article and I commend the HA for writing it at this very important time.
The Industrial World View referred to in the article explains why the Venture Minerals is unconcerned about the environmental consequences of its proposed three open cut mine, as is evident from its attempt to have the mines assessed separately (see “Miner accused over wilderness plans”, the Australian 5-5-12).
For the absence of legal requirements to take cumulative impact into consideration, separate assessment under estimate the actual total impact and thereby improves chances of approvals, as any reference to the other mines are then deemed to be rejected as being outside terms of reference, even though their relevance is clearly evident from the article’s excellent photographs and the title “Tasmanian Government’s mining leases threaten to destroy most of the Tarkine” to the Government’s Map of December, 2012.
The destruction of Australia’s resources for short term economic gain has driven me to go to university to become an environmental biologist. I grew up in a world that was bright and full of hope and promise, but as I’ve grown older I’ve come to realise that the world is driven by greed and peoples desire to satisfy themselves. Mining companies are the epitome of unsustainable industry. Every new mine that is proposed and approved is another major blow to our dwindling natural environment. Australia has the highest carbon footprint per person of any country, Australia has the highest extinction rate for mammals in the world, Australia has already lost 92% of our original forest…….And you want to build more mines? Mines in the Tarkine? Surely it has to be a joke. Can someone please confirm to me that the federal government is actually considering this? If I didn’t know that in a few years I will be on the front line providing evidence that stops the progress of these heartless companies, I would go and throw myself off a bridge. Unfortunately the majority of Australians are uneducated and don’t realise whats going on, anne I don’t blame them, I blame the greed-driven fat cats who are literally trying to brainwash the public with their prime-time TV commercials claiming ‘Clean coal’, and giving us their sop stories about Australian miners and their families. Wake up Australia. Don’t let mining in the Tarkine become a reality, its not just the mining site itself for which old growth forest is levelled, not just the pollution and heavy metals that get pumped into pristine streams, not just all the roads through pristine forest that are built to the mines with their constant heavy vehicle traffic, (Do you think the mine trucks stop for echidnas? I don’t think so.) Its the de-valuing of a natural resource which is worth more money over the long term if it is kept intact and protected. I guess people don’t care about the future, or their children’s future. The value of the environment becomes exponentially lower each and every generation. No thanks to the mining companies and the government bodies who back them and allow this to happen. Lets invest money in alternative industries and create new jobs. Wake up Australia.
African Elephant at Franklin Zoo & Wildlife Sanctuary
situated outside the town of Tuakau near Auckland, New Zealand.
Its wildlife veterinarian surgeon (the late) Dr. Helen Schofield stands in front.
[Ed. Note elephant’s tusks have been previously sawn off by a circus] (Photo by Associated Press, 20091220)
[Source: ^http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/ca-sanctuary-says-killer-elephant-still-welcome-1.3684690]
.
Last Wednesday afternoon (20120425) New Zealand wildlife veterinarian surgeon, Dr. Helen Schofield, was tragically crushed to death by an African Elephant who sat on her at Franklin Zoo & Wildlife Sanctuary near Auckland, according to emergency officials and reports.
Reports say the female elephant was trying to protect the vet after the elephant got a fright and wrapped her trunk around the vet, before going down, killing the vet. [Ed. This suggests that it was an accident caused by fright, and not the intention of the elephant to kill the vet]. Emergency services say the woman died at the zoo/sanctuary at around 4.30pm local time.
What is significant is that this 39-year-old African elephant was formerly used and abused in circus entertainment (Loritz as well as Webers), where she had lived shackled for 28 years with no other elephants. The circus had not surprisingly named the elephant ‘Jumbo‘.
Same elephant back in 2009, named ‘Jumbo’, tethered to Loritz Circus trailer for 28 years
African elephants in the wild live up to 70 years, but in captivity only to 50, not surprisingly.
[Watch Video at Webber’s Circus in 2009].
.
About three years ago, the elephant was given to the SPCA Auckland (Society for the Prevention Against Cruelty to Animals, ^http://www.spca.org.nz/) which then found a refuge for it in 2009 at the Franklin Zoo and Wildlife Sanctuary just outside Auckland. The elephant has for the past three years been under the care and rehabilitation at the zoo/sanctuary.
Dr Schofield at Franklin had previously stated that the elephant (renamed by the zoo ‘Mila‘) had settled in well and developed close and affectionate relationships with her team of keepers. She wrote: “Our dream for Jumbo is to get her in a situation where she can have other African elephants for company.”
A woman who lives in a property neighbouring the zoo, who declined to be named, said she had seen the activity at the zoo when the ambulances arrived.
“We look out and see the elephant every day,” she said. “I don’t think it’s very friendly. It hasn’t had a very happy life.”
Same elephant in 2009
SAFE (Save Animals from Exploitation, NZ) animal rights protest group stage a protest outside the circus at Avalon Park, Lower Hutt, New Zealand
[Source: ‘Loritz Circus Jumbo the Elephant’, YouTube, ^http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5c00551DUw]
.
Sad circus scenes only three years ago (different elephants)
[Source: ‘Jumbo Stars: Elephants in Carson & Barnes Circus’, YouTube,
^http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=jX58pNwWcRY]
.
New Zealand Police have stated that if the death is confirmed as an accident it is unlikely the elephant will be put down, but a final decision will be made in 24 hours. At the time of writing six days hence, the elephant is still alive and under care at the nearby Auckland Zoo (^http://www.aucklandzoo.co.nz/) awaiting her fate.
Same African Elephant, renamed ‘Mila’
Elephants are social creatures and there was concern Mila had been lonely.
Mila was the only elephant at the Franklin Zoo, which built a new enclosure for her in 2010.
(Photo Franklin Zoo/Sanctuary)
Franklin Zoo and Wildlife Sanctuary was nearing the end of a two year preparatory re-adjustment process for the elephant to have her ultimately crate shipped to California (USA) to Pat Derby’s Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) ^http://www.pawsweb.org/ in San Andreas outside Sacramento. Since 1984, The Performing Animal Welfare Society has provided a sanctuary for animals that have been the victims of the exotic and performing animal trades. PAWS also investigates reports of abused performing and exotic animals, documents cruelty and assists in investigations and prosecutions by regulatory agencies to alleviate the suffering of captive wildlife.
Despite the tragic accidental killing of Dr Schofield, Pat Derby has confirmed that it remains committed to receiving the elephant into its Californian sanctuary.
Hans Kriek, executive director of New Zealand based Save Animals from Exploitation ^http://www.safe.org.nz/, said he had talked to Dr Schofield the day before she died and that she told him she believed Mila was ready to ship.
.
Pat Derby advised her experience with elephants rescued from circuses:
“All elephants, particularly Africans, suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Ed. like humans).
“They’re captured from the wild. The capture usually involves killing their whole family unit, which is a terrible drama.
They all suffer horrendous physical and psychological problems. You just never know when it will express itself.”
In addition, Derby said she is sure the stress of circus life contributed to the trauma of adjusting for Mila.
.
In San Andreas, near Sacramento in Northern California, where Mila was headed, three African elephants are kept separate from other elephants, Derby said.
“We always keep safe distances and safety barriers between the elephants and the people so there’s no opportunity for accidents to happen“, she said.
.
Elephant Shipment Trauma
.
Transporting an elephant halfway around the world is extremely tricky, Derby said. Flying is the fastest way but also the most expensive and “I don’t know what the funding issue is there,” Derby said.
If a ship and truck are used, it’s a “long, long journey,” she said. Once an elephant leaves on such a trip, it is stuck in the crate until it arrives, she said.
“When children see animals in a circus, they learn that animals exist for our amusement. Quite apart from the cruelty involved in training and confining these animals, the whole idea that we should enjoy the humiliating spectacle of an elephant or lion made to perform circus tricks shows a lack of respect for the animals as individuals”
~ Peter Singer, Author/Philosopher, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, USA
.
Animal abuse and cruelty is immoral. Most modern civilized societies have outlawed animal cruelty, making it a crime.
Entertainment involving animals is a form of animal abuse. Circuses and zoos conceived for human entertainment are primitive and barbaric, dating back to 18th Century Georgian times when human slavery was cultiraly acceptable. The first modern zoo evolved out of an aristocratic menagerie in Vienna in 1765.
Although many circuses have been banned from using wildlife in their entertainment, disgustingly it has only been in recent years. But still, organisations such as Sea World (^http://www.sea-world.com.au/) still entertain the public using dolphins, seals and orcas.
Jumbo was the last of New Zealand’s circus elephants, retired in 2009 after a concerted pressure campaign by Save Animals from Exploitation (SAFE), and there are no more circuses that use wild animals in this country. But the practice has still not been banned outright. This puts it in the category of anachronistic laws which should be repealed at the earliest opportunity.
In New Zealand, Dunedin and Wellington City Councils have local bans on the use of wild animals in circuses. There is a Circus Welfare Code, but like many of the codes under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 appears to contravene the Act under which it was created, particularly section 4(c) which stipulates that animals must have the ‘opportunity to display normal patterns of behaviour.’ A requirement that is by definition outside the performance expected of a circus animal.
The plight of elephants in circuses is particularly troubling. Elephants are majestic creatures who are intelligent and self-aware. They are among the most socially- bonded animals on the planet, and display a complex array of emotions, including expressions of grief and compassion. They mourn their dead, use tools, and communicate with each other over vast distances through sound. They are biologically designed to browse, constantly on the move for 18 or more hours out of the day, even where food is readily available…
But enslaved in circuses, far removed from conditions they need to thrive, elephants:
Spend days at a time chained in cramped train cars or trucks, eating and sleeping in their own excrement, exposed to temperature extremes, for much of their lives. When not in transit, they are chained or confined in tiny pens, usually on concrete.
Perform unnatural tricks that are often damaging to their bodies. Wild elephants do not stand on their heads or on two legs.
Often display neurotic behavior, such as swaying and head-bobbing, from boredom and severe stress (Ed. like Jumbo in the video above).
Suffer from painful foot and joint disease, a leading cause of premature death in captive elephants, from standing too long on hard surfaces and in their own waste.
.
Circuses Tear Families Apart
.
Elephants have intense, strong family bonds. Wild females stay with their mothers, aunts and cousins for life. Males do not leave the herd until their teens. The entire extended elephant family helps nurture and care for the young.
Most of the elephants performing in circuses today were captured from the wild, violently separated from their mothers, and shipped to the U.S. when they were very young. Every Asian elephant taken from the wild has endured a brutal breaking process (“the crush”), which involves beating with nail-studded sticks, sleep-deprivation, hunger, and thirst to break the animals’ spirits.
Elephants born into captivity in circuses are routinely torn from their mothers as infants younger than two years old, for training and performance.
For anyone who knows about elephants, seeing these complex, family-centered individuals chained and broken, performing demeaning tricks is simply heartbreaking…
There’s no family fun to be had at an event that involves such cruelty and suffering. Let’s teach our children to respect animals by seeing them in their natural states, not as captives forced and beaten into unnatural displays for our entertainment.
.
“We can see quite plainly that our present civilization is built on the exploitation of animals, just as past civilisations were built on the exploitation of slaves”
As of 1 July 2010, the use of any animal in a circus has been banned in Bolivia. A handful of other countries have banned the use of wild animals in circuses but only Bolivia has banned exploitation of domestic animals in circuses as well.
The Bolivian law, which states that the use of all animals in circuses ‘constitutes an act of cruelty’ was enacted on 1 July 2009, with operators given a year to comply.
The bill took two years to pass through both chambers of the Plurinational Assembly, meeting stiff opposition from the eastern states of Bolivia where there was concern that the law would be expanded to include bullfighting, which is popular in rural villages. Bullfighting remains legal in Bolivia.
The legislature were eventually won over by a screening of videos shot by undercover circus infiltrators in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia co-ordinated and funded by Animal Defence International (ADI), a London-based NGO which found that ill-treatment and violence against animals in circuses is commonplace.
The harsh Bolivian climate alone claimed has claimed many victims. Just last year, a hippopotamus died in his sleep when the circus pool froze over in the Andean city of Potosí, 4000 metres above sea level. A dwarf elephant died of exposure in La Paz’s dry winter of 2007.
The follow-up to this law change is also important; with a number of wild animals no longer economically useful to their owners, many will be either killed or turned loose. Animals released from captivity generally do not re-integrate and are likely to die from starvation or attack from other animals. To avoid this, Ximena Flores, sponsor of the law, has said that “[a]bout 50 animals are circulating in national and international circuses at the moment [in Bolivia] and we want to negotiate to make sure that the animals aren’t eliminated.”
Austria, Costa Rica, Hungary, Finland, India, Israel, Singapore and most recently China have banned the use of wild circus animals while Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and the Czech Republic have limited the use of certain species. The State of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil and the cities of Buenos Aires (Argentina) and Porto Alegre (Brazil) have implemented full bans on both wild and domesticated species. Nationwide bans on all animals in traveling circuses are under consideration in Brazil, Colombia and Peru, where legislation is expected in the near future. Several major European towns and cities have either banned all circus animal acts or wild animal acts, including Thessaloniki (Greece), Barcelona (Spain), Cork (Ireland) and Venice (Italy). In Croatia, most major cities have bans.
.
Australia
.
In Australia, Ipswich Council (Queensland) and Parramatta (Sydney, NSW) have local bans of wild animals in circuses.
Around the world, the plight of animals in circuses is increasingly heard. National, regional and local governments in at least 30 countries have already banned the use of exotic or all animals in circuses. But the Australian Federal and State Government policies are failing these animals. The requirements in the — mostly voluntary — guidelines for the keeping of animals in circuses in Australia are far below what is generally required for the same species kept in zoos and are totally inadequate to protect their welfare. Thankfully an increasing number of Australian councils are taking an ethical stance by adopting a ban on exotic animal circuses on council land.
For Animals Australia, entertainment stops where animal suffering begins. Circuses can not recreate a natural environment nor can animals in circuses perform much natural behaviour. A non-domesticated animal’s life is consequently impoverished and the keeping of exotic animals in circuses should therefore be banned. The animals currently being kept by circuses need to be re-homed in a quality sanctuary or zoo.
.
Britain
.
Currently, Britain appears to be at at a critical juncture with regard to banning the use of performing wild animals. A ban in the UK would affect around 40 animals owned by four circus companies. On 25 March 2010, Labour’s environment minister, Jim Fitzpatrick, said he was “minded” to ban performing wild animals after research showed that 94 per cent of the public supported a ban. A survey by the Animals Defenders International (^http://www.ad-international.org/adi_uk/) of 310 local authorities (town and county councils) showed that 39% had already banned all animal acts and 17% had banned wild animal acts.
However, while the new Coalition government has said it is considering whether or not to proceed with the ban, 143 politicians have now signed a parliamentary Early Day Motion, (EDM) 403, calling for the wild animal ban to finally be implemented.
Exotic animals in circuses are routinely subjected to months on the road confined in small, barren cages. These animals are forced to live in enclosures denying them every opportunity to express their natural behaviour and their training is often based on fear and punishment as revealed by numerous undercover investigations.
As circuses play no meaningful role in education or conservation, the lifelong suffering of these animals continues only for the sake of a few minutes of entertainment.
Below: How do you get a wild animal to perform unnatural circus tricks?
This shocking undercover footage from the U.S. shows Carson & Barnes ‘trainers’ using bull hooks, electric prods, and even blowtorches on their elephants. Footage thanks to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, ^http://www.peta.org/). ^http://www.animalsaustralia.org/issues/circuses.php
Saved by the Mail: Anne the elephant, pictured with former owner Bobby Roberts, who along with his wife Moira has been charged with causing the animal suffering
.
Circuses will be banned from keeping wild animals within two years. Ministers will today announce the U-turn after coming under intense pressure from MPs and celebrities to implement the crackdown. The Department for the Environment will confirm plans to introduce a law within this Parliament.
Last year, MPs inflicted a humiliating defeat on the Government by backing a backbench motion by Tory MP Mark Pritchard, which called for a ban.
Until this is introduced, ministers will bring in a tough licensing regime for the few circus owners still using wild animals.
An estimated 150 to 200 animals are currently held in circuses, 37 of which are wild. They include zebras, lions, tigers, camels, a kangaroo and crocodiles.
Sir Paul McCartney, comedian Ricky Gervais and actor Brian Blessed are among the celebrities who have called for a ban, which 94 per cent of the public supports.
The Daily Mail has been at the forefront of the campaign after highlighting the plight of Anne, Britain’s last circus elephant.
Former owners Moira and Bobby Roberts have been charged with causing Anne suffering by failing to prevent her groom beating her.
The 59-year-old elephant now lives at Longleat safari park in Wiltshire thanks to our readers, who donated £340,000 for her care.
The prosecution is believed to be the first of a circus owner for animal cruelty under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
An estimated 150-200 animals are currently held in circuses, and an estimated 37 of these are wild animals. These include zebras, lions, snakes, tigers, camels, a kangaroo and crocodiles.
Prime Minister David Cameron has previously signalled his support for the crackdown by acknowledging that it was ‘not right’ to still have lions and tigers performing in the big top.
A Defra spokesman said: ‘We always said we were minded to ban wild animals performing in travelling circus, the only issue being that we have to be sure that it cannot be overturned legally. ‘Therefore in the meantime we are proposing a tough new licensing regime which can be introduced quickly, to ensure high welfare standards.’
.
Entertainment Zoos or Wildlife Sanctuaries?
.
Removal of wild animals from their habitat is wrong. They should be left in their natural surroundings and not exploited as objects for human entertainment.
In situ wildlife refuges or wildlife sanctuaries play a critical role in habouring wildlife at risk from poaching and from the many human drivers of extinction. Wildlife refuges or wildlife sanctuaries situated in the native country of origin are best placed to enable wildlife to survive naturally. Zoological captive breeding programmes that facilitate wildlife reintroduction into the wild in safe sanctuaries are to be commended. This is where the resourcing, efforts and research need to be channelled globally.
But shipping wildlife over long distances to foreign and typically urban zoos, benefits human entertainment not the wildlife. Elephants belong in Africa or Asia according to their supbspecies, not in New Zealand. Petting zoos that encourage the public to get up and close with the animals are a mere extension of circuses – wildlife for human entertainment and as tourist drawcards/attractions.
.
Compare the Old Urban Entertainment Zoos:
.
Example 1: Auckland Zoo
The Tourist child spiel:
‘Auckland Zoo is home to the largest collection of native and exotic animals in New Zealand, set in 17 hectares of lush parkland and just five minutes from central Auckland. There is lots to see and do all year, including events, animal encounters, Zoom (behind the scenes) tours and more! Our Zoom (behind-the-scenes) Tours offer you an exclusive backstage pass to go behind the scenes. Imagine helping a keeper wash down an elephant, coming eye to eye with New Zealand fauna, a tiger, or one of Africa’s big five.’
‘Function and Venue Hire:
‘With 180 degree, uninterrupted views of Sydney Harbour, Taronga Zoo provides a picturesque backdrop and unique setting that is guaranteed to make any event truly memorable. With a wide a variety of venue options available, both in and outdoors,Taronga Zoo is an ideal setting for all occasions ranging from gala dinners, conferences, Christmas and cocktail parties as well as boasting a truly stunning venue for Weddings.The Taronga were the proud winners of the 2010 Restaurant and Catering Awards for Excellence -Wedding Caterer in a Function Centre AND voted in the Vogue Top 3 wedding locations 2012. With both these outstanding recognitions for excellence, the Taronga centre combining their passion and enthusiasm for food and their excellence in service and events is certainly an ideal choice to host your next event.’
Example 3: Orokonui Ecosanctuary (Waitati, Dunedin, New Zealand)
‘What began as a mere dream to restore an entire forest ecosystem to its pre-human state, is now a reality.
In less than 10 years, the Orokonui Ecosanctuary has become the only place on mainland South Island of New Zealand where native birds, animals and insects can live a life safe from predators. They are free to fly, feed, mate and nest wherever they wish, exactly as they would in the wild.
Since the $2.2 million, 8.7km pest-proof fence was erected around our 307 hectares of protected habitat in 2007, pests have been almost entirely eradicated. This has allowed us to reintroduce a number of endangered species and there are encouraging signs they are adapting well to their new home. In fact, it is becoming increasingly common for native birds to find their own way to the ecosanctuary and take up residence.
To support the Ecosanctuary, a multi-million dollar eco-friendly visitor and ODT education centre has been built into the hillside above Blueskin Bay. Here, visitors can learn about the Ecosanctuary and the native species it contains, take a guided tour through the Ecosanctuary, purchase gifts and educational material from the souvenir shop, or simply have a coffee and enjoy the view. All of the funds generated from visitors contribute to the ongoing conservation work at Orokonui Ecosanctuary.’
Example 4: Enkosini Wildlife Sanctuary (Northern Provence, South Africa
‘The Enkosini Wildlife Reserve was formed in 2001 to protect and preserve Africa’s wildlife and habitat. Enkosini (derived from the Zulu word meaning “place of kings”) was established as a conservancy, by purchasing and joining together large South African farms with the aim of restoring the environment back to its natural state and establishing a larger reserve for the benefit of African wildlife. Enkosini is a unique conservation initiative that will re-introduce indigenous wildlife onto land they once naturally roamed, ultimately re-establishing all of the original flora and fauna to the area. Enkosini will also continue to acquire habitat for the long-term survival of the wildlife and the preservation of their eco-systems.
Enkosini’s goal is to create a self-sustaining model of responsible conservation that preserves Africa’s natural heritage (habitat and wildlife); enhances the South African economy through overseas capital infusion, local and international eco-tourism, and job creation; and promotes education and awareness of conservation issues.’
I was devastated to read today that Queenslands Gold Coast Council are to debate whether to overturn their 2009 ban on Circuses with exotic animals hiring Council land.
I was instrumental in encouraging Blue Mountains City Council to impose this ban many years ago. I failed to get Council to agree on the cruelty issue but was successful when I switched to the damage caused to the public land. Circuses are a business yet they hire Council land for the same fee as a charity as there is no fee provision for a business.
Australian native Galahs
derived from indigenous Yuwaalaraay word ‘gilaa‘
(Eolophus roseicapilla)
Just because Galahs are currently abundant, gives no-one the right to steal them and imprison them from the wild
.
Wildlife does not exist so that it may be petted!
Wildlife exists for its own right, as members of fragile yet disappearing ecosystems, defying the hand of humans. Many humans are not content to observe and respect wildlife in their native habitat. Such folk are anthropocentric, wanting to own wildlife as property and label them as ‘pets‘.
The mindset is as backward as colonial Europeans once owned Black slaves. Such anthropocentric thinking folk would not have a clue about the concept of ‘ecology‘ where humans are part of the environment, but instead control and dominate it. Such folk may even naively only comprehend the term to be that recently hijacked by Information Technologists – in the realm of commerce.
The Atlantic Slave Trade once was Legal…doesn’t mean it was right, just culturally acceptable
.
While 21st Century society mostly has morally matured:
to abolish the Slave Trade
to respect the rights of Children
to respect the rights of Women
to respect the rights of Indigenous peoples
.
.. still the Wildlife Slave Trade persists in 21st Century society, as if somehow it is morally distinguishable from theHuman Slave Trade.
No law has yet legitimised this distinction. Instead, society relies upon prevailing socio-cultural norms to allow the immoral trade in wildlife to persist.
This is unacceptable.
Humans breed wildlife and keep wildlife as pets for their own gratification, not for the benefit of wildlife per se. Pet shops are permitted by the Australian Government to keep and sell wildlife as pets such as native birds, native reptiles, native marsupials and native Dingoes. Animals are excluded from the Crimes Act. But this is no different to excluding Australian Aborigines from criminal law during early colonial Australia up until 1838 (Myall Creek Massacre). It is no different to the use of child labour during the Industrial Revolution, nor any different to the patriarchal prejudice assigning women less rights somehow than men.
It is ‘moral exclusion‘, like when soldiers before battle are conditioned to dehumanise the enemy in order to psychologically distance themselves from selected humans to permit massacring other humans with impunity. Such ‘dehumanization‘ can make violating generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one’s fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary (Maiese, 2003) – like the Australian Airforce helping the United States bomb the Vietnamese back into the Stone Age.
“Tell the Vietnamese they’ve got to draw in their horns or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.”
~ US General Curtis LeMay, May 1964
.
Australians witness this moral exclusion mindset being translated into Australia’s ongoing kangaroo slaughter on an industrial scale.
But sentience is sentience, a life is a life. Breeding and trading in domesticated animals is treating animals as property, like clothes and a car. Ancient Romans treated slaves as property and their ancient laws upheld their immorality.
Australia is not the ancient Roman Empire. Respect for the equal rights of humans is enshrined in Australian cultural values and laws. Yet our moral relativism judges excluding wildlife from our cultural values and laws. Why? How is this legitimate, appropriate and right? It isn’t.
Wildlife come under threat from humans from over a dozen exploitative excuses – deforestation, bushfire, poaching, etc. Wildlife smugglers and wildlife traders (‘pimps‘) make a profit from the theft, breeding and trading in wildlife. It is exploitation and is morally wrong, yet the laws do not uphold morality in the case of wildlife. When laws fail to uphold moral cultural values, civilised society is undermined. The Roman Empire may have thought of itself as a civilised society in ancient times, despite its institutionalised slavery; but in the 21st Century, Australian civilised society warrants a higher standard.
.
Dural Pet Superstore Burns Down
.
Then when a pet shop burns down killing all animals inside including wildlife, one can only imagine the suffering as the animals are burned to death, locked up inside, abandonned.
This morning at around 2am, the Dural Pet Superstore in outer north-western Sydney caught fire in an industrial complex, the Dural Business Centre at 915 Old Northern Road Dural, as a result of an adjoining commercial premises igniting. Police say the fire broke out at a tyre factory although the cause was not immediately clear.
Animals being burned to death in the Dural pet shop fire
.
It was the fire alarm of the pet store that alerted the fire bridage to attend, but it was too hot and too late for the amimals in the pet shop.
Pet native reptiles for sale on the Dural Pet Superstore website like our native Water Dragons and Bearded Dragon Lizards (above)
.
Inspector Ben Shepherd from the NSW Rural Fire Service said some parts of the complex, including the Dural Pet Superstore, had been destroyed.
Hundreds of animals from the store are assumed dead. The store sold rabbits, guinea pigs, chickens and budgies.
“We stock a wide range of finches, as well as young and adult budgies… we also sell quails, cockatiels, canaries, peach face lovebirds and more.”
~ Dural Pet Superstore website
Native Galahs being offered for sale on the Dural Pet Superstore website
.
The store housed birds, chickens, fish and the renowned rainbow lorikeet ‘Pierre’ – who had been with the store for 11 years.
Rainbow Lorikeet for sale at the Dural Pet Superstore
(Trichoglossus haematodus)
Native parrot of Australia and the south west pacific region
.
The Tyrepower Store, next to the Dural Pet Superstore
Picture by Natalie Roberts
Would a creche or nursing home with unattended sleeping occupants be permitted at this location?
Typical official answer: No, animals do not have the same value as humans, so it doesn’t matter.
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo for sale on the Dural Pet Superstore website
[Cacatua galerita]
Just because Cockatoos are currently abundant, gives no-one the right to steal them and imprison them from the wild
.
[Sources: ‘All animals dead as fire guts Sydney pet shop’, April 24, 2012, AAP, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/all-animals-dead-as-fire-guts-sydney-pet-shop-20120424-1xifv.html, ^http://www.hillsnews.com.au/news/local/news/general/fire-investigation-for-dural-factory-blaze/2531860.aspx]
.
New South Wales Rural Fire Service spokesman Ben Shepherd said seven businesses were damaged during the fire, which included a tyre store, a mechanic and a pet store.
“There was considerable loss to the pet store and there were pets inside”,’ he said.
“The owners were visibly shaken and the business is well known for keeping fish, birds and puppies.”
Investigations into the origin of the fire will take place when the fire cools and the integrity of the building is established. Mr Shepherd said it was too early to tell if the fire was suspicious. [Ed: How qualified is the RFS in large urban fire fighting; is this not the task of the professional urban-trained Fire Brigade?]
Time to ban the sale of animals (especially wildlife) from pet shops
.
Pet shops should only be for the sale of pet food and accessories.
However, since the Australian pet shop market for live animals represents the lure of big money, ‘backstreet breeders‘ and ‘puppy farmers‘ are indiscriminately producing enormous quantities of puppies and kittens and selling them to pet shops.
The Australian Government needs to outlaw puppy farms and backyard breeders to put them out of business. Unfortunately they do trade through many Pet Shops, so Pet Shops have become a big part of the problem. We certainly recognise that Pet Shops are not the only cause of the problem. But however you look at it, there are too many animals bred and not enough homes for them all. That’s why so many are euthanased every year. Anything we can do to stop excessive breeding and impulse selling will reduce the numbers killed. Animals should not be bred for profit only to end up being killed when the money has been made.
‘More puppies inside’…pet shop in Missouri, USA
.
Pet shops encourage the impulse purchase of animals by ill-informed people who later discard their pet when they realise that pet ownership is not as easy or cheap as they thought. These are the animals that end up in the pounds and many thousands are euthanased each year.
Even though statistics are difficult to obtain and are poorly kept, we estimate that 130,000 dogs and 60,000 cats are euthanased each year in Australia by animal welfare agencies. There are simply too many bred and not enough homes. This is an absolute disgrace and no humane Australian could possibly want this situation to continue.
How much is that doggy in the window?
.
People can buy their animal companion from pounds, animal shelters or rescue centres and save a rejected animal’s life in the process!
Or visit a reputable, registered breeder. They will receive better information on the future care of their pet and be vetted for suitability as an owner.
Your story is inaccurate as there were no rainbow lorikeets, galahs or sulphur crested cockatoos at the store at the time of the fire. Also no dogs or cats. I am a customer of Dural Pet Super Store and I was at the store the day before the fire.
Maybe if you had had some pets as a child you would have a better understanding of why people want to have pets. And how a relationship with a pet, as a child, can lead to a deeper appreciation and understanding of the natural world.
I fully agree with the contents of this article and would like to add:-
• that the lack of our comprehension of the fundamental ecological truth about our and our economy’s place within the natural environment (Prof. Ian Lowe in “Australia, State of the Environment 1996”, Executive summery p. 15) stems from our religious indoctrination about God creating us apart from and in control of nature and our economists’ indoctrination that we and the environment are part of and dependent on the economy. In contrast the fundamental ecological truth is embedded in Aboriginal religion, ethics and life (Rose, Deborah Bird – Chapter 15, “traditional Aboriginal Society, a Reader”, Edited by WH Edwards; MacMillan 1987);
• the exotic pet trade is also responsible for environmental damage due to its contribution to the increase in variety and number of feral animals (see invasive Species Council).
I think that Paul missed the gist of the article, as it is not against having pets but only against the trade in pets and the treatment of animals as a commodity because of the numerous adverse effects this has on the welfare of animals, wildlife and the natural environment.
This article challenges the right of people to keep wildlife in pet shops to sell as pets. It has transferable messages to all animals and recognises the subject is complex and controversial.
(1) Humanity’s place within the Nature
(2) Questioning any religious premise that prescribes humans having a god-given right to control Nature
(3) To aspire to deeper understanding of Indigenous peoples’ respect and interpretation of the integral value of Nature in human life, decision making and spirituality.
(4) To realise the systemic harmful impact of the exotic Australian native fauna, indeed driving many species extinctions.
Barbara, we apologise if we have misinterpreted your comment, but we greatly appreciate your input.
===
Paul,
Thank you for your personal update of your reported facts.
It is comforting that you personally have reported that less animals were killed in this pet shop fire than were reported in the press.
In our article, we re-quoted press reports, which we have hyperlinked referenced – so please check these press references in our article.
Paul, you also offer a view that children benefit from growing up with pets to help them “lead to a deeper appreciation and understanding of the natural world”.
We do not disagree with you.
Early ethical supervised exposure of children to animals in care serves to be vital nurturing education. It should engender a child’s empathy and respect for other creatures, indeed for other people in later life.
Our article does not critisise the value of animal pets to humans.
Rather, our article criticises the human exploitation of animals. We consider pet shops that source and sell animals and encourage animal breeding as immoral. We particularly consider that poaching wildlife to exploit as pets is immoral.
We value all life, people and animals. This article is dedicated to value of the life of..
‘the renowned rainbow lorikeet ‘Pierre’ – who had been with the Dural Pet Superstore for 11 years’ as reported in the press.
One might say anything that humans do is just part of evolution. If the minority one day ever becomes the majority, then what the heck will the minority have to whinge about.
Thank you Paul, for knowing your facts and the store personally, before judging this particular pet store.
I recently started working with Dural Pet Superstore. No dogs, puppies, kittens or cats were ever sold from Dural Pet Superstore. No cockatoo’s, galah’s, lorikeets were sold at or by the store. No reptiles were ever sold by the store. The people I work with have a high respect for animals and their rights. The care, feeding, watering and cleanliness of the pets was and will be again the first and highest priority for me and my colleagues. We are all still having trouble dealing with what happened.
The Caltex had the bousers turned off and it’s Australia, they’re underground…… It would not have been a big explosion. Their attention should have been to protect the living……. and, we didn’t get to choose which Fire Fighters would cover the area….. You’re right, there’s different training for bush, grass fires than building fires.
There is no conclusive evidence where the fire started. Yet, the building’s interior was pulled out before they assessed the damage. Sorry, how are you supposed to figure out where the fire started after you’ve moved everything????
There were other calls made to the Fire Fighters before the Pet Shop’s alarm went off.
If you have a look at the site, the focus was kept at the front of the complex right, yet the very back of the building isn’t completely burnt like the rest. So where do you think the fire started??? There were seven businesses affected, but one of them had living Pets inside. We agree, the focus should have been to save the Pets.
It is wonderful to care for your pets, and animals do benefit from human companionship too. Once animals are a pet, they need the loving relationship between them and their owner aswell.
Maybe we should be protecting our wildlife from people who are taking healthy animals straight from the wild. Dural Pet store didn’t sell wildlife, they sold pets. There’s a difference.
There are many people stealing our wildlife to transport overseas. Most of these animals don’t make it alive, as they are cramped, starved and stressed. If they do make it alive, who know’s what happens to them.
Other people kill wildlife to protect their lively hood, for ‘the game’, or for an aphrodisiac, or for religion.
How many of you buy free range eggs? I mean “Manning Valley” or other REAL free Range Eggs? Not your Coles free range, with their free range being a large enclosed inside area……
The ODJ Menace may well be a threat to sheep flocks,
but Wolves have got nothing to do with ODJ nor with Australian sheep!
This is the cause of Ovine Johne’s Disease, the bacteria ‘Mycobacterium paratuberculosis’
[Source: ‘Detection of Mycobacterium avium spp. paratuberculosis (Map) in samples of sheep paratuberculosis (Johne’s disease or JD) and human Crohn’s disease (CD) using liquid phase RT-PCR, in situ RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry’, by S. Roccaemail, T. Cubeddu, A.M. Nieddu, S. Pirino, S. Appino, E. Antuofermo, F. Tanda, R. Verin, L.A. Sechi, E. Taccini, A. Leoni published online 20 January 2010, Small Ruminant Research, ^http://www.smallruminantresearch.com/article/S0921-4488%2809%2900292-2/abstract]
Wolf Prejudice dates back to Little Red Riding Hood
A Grimms Brothers fairy tale inculcating the ‘Big Bad Wolf ‘ fear to impressionable children
Alaska’s brutal ‘Predator Control Plan’
Gray Wolves remain persecuted across America by irrational Baby Boomer attitudes
The classic image of the ‘Camp Fire’
This advertisement by Pfizer Australia is obviously unethical and according to me should be banned. As the same European people colonised both America and Australia, the consequences for Indigenous Peoples and native animals and plants were in Australia the same. The fictitious image of the wolf has been transferred on the dingo resulting in its use as a derogative terms and in policies of its eradication.