Play music, then click back to this site, zoom in to make the photos larger and scroll through this article and appreciate the magic of what was Lake Pedder.

.

The pristine glacial lake it once was.

The jewel of Tasmania’s primeval sacred ecology.

.

Lake Pedder

 

 

(Photo by Olegas Truchanas (1923-1972)

.

This photo currently appropriated on the website of Tasmanian Resource Planning and Development Commission,

which as the ‘Hydro-Electric Commission’ flooded the lake in 1972 and which oddly uses the word ‘justice’ in its web address.

 

^http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/image/544/index.php

---

 

New Book Release:

.

‘Pedder Dreaming: Olegas Truchanas and a lost Tasmanian Wilderness’

by Natasha Cica, September 2011  | ISBN  978 0 7022 3672 3 | RRP:$59.95,  | 230mm x 203 mm  | Illustrated | 256pp (full colour) | Published by UQP | [Read More]

.

‘In 1972 Lake Pedder in Tasmania’s untamed south-west was flooded to build a dam.

Wilderness photographer Olegas Truchanas, who had spent years campaigning passionately to save the magnificent fresh water lake, had finally lost.

The campaign, the first of its kind in Australia, paved the way for later conservation successes, and turned Truchanas into a Tasmanian legend. Pedder Dreaming quietly evokes the man, the time and the place.

Truchanas, a Lithuanian émigré, is a stalwart adventurer, loving family man, activist, thinker, survivor and artist. Australia on the cusp of environmental awareness is the time, and Lake Pedder and the south-west of Tasmania, the place – wild, pristine, wondrous.

Through those who were closest to him, Truchanas emerges, as does his influence on early conservation in Tasmania, and the small group of landscape artists, the Sunday Group, who admired his passion for the lake and were inspired by it. Stunningly illustrated with original Truchanas photographs from the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, and artwork from the Sunday Group, Pedder Dreaming captures the brutality, raw beauty and vulnerability of the Tasmanian wilderness and the legacy of one man who had the vision to fight for it.’

What we destroyed… Olegas Truchanas’ children playing in Lake Pedder in Tasmania’s Southwest in 1971. Less that 12 months later it was flooded.

In 1974 the head of the Lake Pedder Committee of Enquiry, Edward St John QC would famously claim “The day will come when our children will undo what we so foolishly have done.”

.

Fake Pedder ~ today’s drowned lake

.

---

.

About Olegas Truchanas

.

Olegas Truchanas, a Lithuanian born in 1923, emigrated to Tasmania after World War II, during which he fought with the Lithuanian resistance and spent time in displaced persons’ camps in Allied-occupied Germany.
From the 1950s, Olegas photographed Tasmania’s remote south-west wilderness, frequently travelling solo and risking his life in order to do so. He also met and married a Tasmanian, Melva, and together they built a house and had three children.

Through his photography, Olegas established a salon-style connection with a circle of Tasmanian photographers and watercolour painters known as the Sunday Group, and he worked with them to save a remote glacial lake with pale pink sands – Lake Pedder – from inundation by a hydroelectric scheme.

This was Australia’s “first globally noticed environmental battle, and later produced the world’s “first greens party. The campaign failed and the lake was lost. Soon afer, in early 1972, Olegas drowned while on a photographic expedition to one of Tasmania’s wildest rivers.

.

---

.

Remembering Lake Pedder

.

Play two rare videos of Lake Pedder by ABC Television just before the flooding:

Turn up your computer volume, then click one image at a time.

.

.

---

.

‘What Lake Pedder taught me’

by Brian Holden,  20081023, ^http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8057&page=2

.

‘It has gone, and after thousands of years of being, I was one of the last to absorb its magnificence. I still find it hard to believe that I was so fortunate. Lake Pedder February 1972 has become my dreamtime. It was for me a feeling of timelessness and a feeling of being in the type of place we were all meant to be.’

.

What Lake Pedder taught me

‘Boneheaded politicians will only do what we let them get away with. One of our crown jewels was able to be destroyed for almost no gain because the public at large have become alien to the planet. It is normal to consume and pollute. It is normal to be stressed and in a spiritual void.  We are lemmings racing towards the cliff edge – and there can be no turning back.’

.

---

.

‘Hydro Past Constrains Future’

by Peter Fagan, 20091027, Tasmanian Times newspaper, ^http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/professor-west-reminds-tasmania-that-hydro-past-constrains-future/

.

‘Whatever else Tasmanians agree or disagree with in Professor West’s report, they should be grateful for this timely reminder that hydro-industrialisation continues to impose heavy costs on their state. In dollar terms alone, the sale of electricity to these industrial users below cost and way below potential value is costing the State Government up to $220 million in revenue every year.

If two-thirds of Tasmania’s annual electricity generation was to be freed up for purposes other than powering these old and highly energy-intensive plants, a range of options and opportunities would be available.

For example:

• A great deal more of the hydro electricity generated could be sold at peak times and peak tariffs via Basslink to mainland Australia
• Electricity production could be reduced whenever the hydro storage reservoirs were depleted by drought, restoring some degree of energy security to the system
• The ability of the hydro system to make electricity availabile instantly could enable integration of substantially more eco-friendly wind power into the Tasmanian and national grids – if this one isn’t clear to you the problem space is outlined in these Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_power_source

.

The most intriguing possibility that gaining control of its electrical energy resource would afford Tasmania is the opportunity to revisit the restoration of Lake Pedder. Draining all or part of the Huon-Serpentine impoundment (the “new” Lake Pedder) need cost less than 20% of the electricity generation capacity of the Middle Gordon Scheme.

.

 

Restoration of the Lake would bring enormous benefits to Tasmania

.

Remember – less than 60 air miles from Hobart, one of the natural wonders of the world lies under less than 40 feet of water. It is submerged in a massive diversion pond (NOT a storage) whose sole purpose is to transfer water to a hydro power station, two thirds of whose output is gifted, below cost and way below potential value, to old-tech secondary industry.

Professor West’s recommendation serves to remind Tasmanians that what had become the political, social, economic and environmental nightmare of hydro-industrialisation did not end when the High Court ruled out the construction of the Gordon-below Franklin dam in July 1983. More than 25 years later, Tasmania – Australia’s poorest state – a rich island full of relatively poor people – continues to bleed revenue and incur household and business energy costs, social costs, environmental costs and opportunity costs resulting from the excesses of hydro-industrialisation.’

The case for restoration of Lake Pedder and a wealth of other resources are available from the Lake Pedder Restoration Committee web site:   www.lakepedder.org

.

---

.

‘Lake Pedder: the beginning of a movement’

by Natasha Simons, Green Left, 19920930, ^http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/2943

‘On September 8, 1972, Brenda Hean and Max Price, members of the Lake Pedder Action Group, waved goodbye to friends and relatives as their Tiger Moth plane taxied down the airstrip just outside Hobart. Their mission was to fly to Canberra and skywrite the message “Save Lake Pedder” to the federal government in an effort to stop the flooding of the lake. They have been missing ever since.

Twenty years ago the campaign to save Lake Pedder was lost, but its lessons were well learned by the new green movement. The fight to save Lake Pedder laid the foundations for the overwhelming success of the Franklin “no dams!” campaign in the early 1980s, and it inspired many environmental activists — some of whom, such as Bob Brown, hold seats in Parliament today.

Lake Pedder, in Tasmania’s wild south-west, is considered by many to be one of the most beautiful regions in the world. By 1946 Pedder had become a base for expeditions into all parts of the south-west. In 1955, 24 000 hectares were set aside as the Lake Pedder National Park. Bushwalkers, tourists and nature lovers came from afar to experience the beauty of Lake Pedder.

In 1967 the Hydro-Electric Commission proposed to build a power scheme in the Middle Gordon. This meant that Lake Pedder would be drowned by the damming of the Huon and Serpentine Rivers, which lay to the east and west of the lake.

In May 1967, the proposal was tabled in the state parliament. There was an immediate public outcry. Lake Pedder supporters began a petition to stop the proposal and collected 10,000 signatures, the largest number that had ever been collected in Tasmania. As the pressure mounted, the Labor government of “Electric Eric” Reece was forced to establish a select committee to determine the viability of the HEC proposal, and to look at alternatives.

However, the committee merely rubber-stamped the proposal. Two days later, on August 24, 1967, the enabling legislation was passed. Then the campaign to save Lake Pedder really began.

In 1969 the Reece government lost office in the wake of public discontent over the issue and the new government, a coalition of the Liberal and Centre parties headed by Angus Bethune, found itself in a difficult situation.

.

In March 1971 Brenda Hean and Louis Shoobridge, two prominent campaigners for Lake Pedder, organised a public meeting which packed the Hobart Town Hall.

Public opinion on the issue had polarised.

The public meeting proposed to call a referendum on the issue, but the “Shoobridge proposal”, as it became known, was defeated by a government wholeheartedly backing the HEC.

.

The grassroots activists refused to give up. They formed the Lake Pedder Action Group (LPAG), which took the issue to the federal government. As a result, Prime Minister William McMahon directed his unsympathetic environment minister, Peter Howsden, to raise an alternative scheme with Bethune. The Tasmanian premier responded with a resounding “No”.

Just as it seemed things were lost, the Bethune government was forced to the polls, and the environmentalists seized the opportunity. Again a public meeting was called in the Hobart Town Hall. Out of it the first green party, the United Tasmania Group (UTG), was formed. The UTG fielded candidates, among them Brenda Hean, with very diverse backgrounds but who were united in their desire to save Lake Pedder from the HEC.

The UTG polled well and, despite HEC attempts to discredit the campaign, Lake Pedder gained international attention, including support from organisations such as UNESCO. On July 24, 1972, 17,500 signatures reached the new premier, and the LPAG mounted a national campaign.

A few days before Brenda Hean and Max Price set off for Canberra, Hean had received an anonymous phone call from someone pressuring her to give up the campaign or “go for a swim”. The plane hangar was found to have been broken into and the safety beacon, normally stored on the plane, had been removed. There was never a proper inquiry into the case and no wreckage was ever found.

The Pedder campaigners now put their hopes on the newly elected federal Labor government, which mounted a federal-state inquiry. The Tasmanian government refused to participate, but the committee in June 1973 reported the area was too important to destroy. The inquiry recommended a moratorium on flooding so that the feasibility of saving the lake could be addressed. It adopted LPAG’s recommendations to pay the costs of the moratorium and any costs of modifying the scheme to save the lake. The weary LPAG activists could sense victory.

But the premier ignored the inquiry and gave the HEC the go-ahead. In March 1973 the vigil camp to save wildlife threatened by the rising waters was abandoned, and Lake Pedder was drowned. Tasmanian environmentalists had suffered their first great defeat.

In 1979, the HEC released details of another proposal, this time to flood the Franklin River, one of the last great wilderness areas in the world. This time it was met by a much tougher, more unified and stronger opposition.

The Franklin activists, headed by figures like Bob Brown, had learned how to run a campaign. They didn’t only argue that the Franklin should be saved, as the Pedder campaigners had done; they also presented a range of alternative and well thought-out proposals to the HEC. They gained national and international support for their campaign and employed direct action tactics as well. The Franklin was one of the biggest actions of civil disobedience the country had ever witnessed, with 1217 people arrested.

The Franklin blockade polarised the community on the West Coast. The issue tore the Tasmanian ALP apart, and it has never fully recovered from the blow.

The Franklin campaign was won, and in 1986 Bob Brown was elected to state parliament on a wave of green consciousness. Three years later, during which time the campaign for Wesley Vale was fought and won, he was joined by four other Green Independents.

“The failure of Lake Pedder was needed in a way”, says Green Independent Christine Milne, “to allow the fights for the Franklin and Wesley Vale to succeed. When the lake went under, there was a wide sense of guilt that made people feel they would never again allow that to happen without doing something.”

The momentum built up during the Lake Pedder and Franklin campaigns has been lost to the green movement in recent times. The electoral strategy of some sections has changed the focus from mobilising people to making changes through parliament. Lobbying the ALP has also proven largely ineffective for, while the federal Labor government has espoused green rhetoric, it has for the most part ignored environmental issues.

The recession has pushed the issue of living standards and jobs to the forefront. Big business, the government and the media all counterpose jobs to saving the environment, trying to drive a wedge between environmental and social justice issues.

The creation of jobs and defence of living standards need to be at the forefront of the green agenda, with the emphasis on environmentally sustainable jobs. By taking up more of the social justice agenda, the green movement may link up with others fighting for social change and revive the grassroots activity that can challenge the powers that be.’

.

---

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]   ‘Pedder Dreaming’ – media release  [Read More] [2]   ‘Pedder Dreaming’  book launches  [Read More]

[3]   Lake Pedder Restoration Committee, ^http://www.lakepedder.org/index.html

[4]    Lake Pedder – an overview of its history^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Pedder

[5]    ‘Remember Lake Pedder?‘, by Robert Rankin^http://www.rankin.com.au/essay7.htm

[6]    ‘Lake Pedder‘, Timeframe,^http://www.abc.net.au/science/kelvin/files/s18.htm

[7]    Lake Pedder Earthworm, ^http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=83060

[8]    Lake Pedder Report, presented by ABC Four Corners, 19710424, ^http://www.abceducation.net.au/videolibrary/view/lake-pedder-report-126 [View Video as mp4 – ensure volume is turned up first] [9]    Lake Pedder’s Future’ , by Peter Ross, ABC TV, This Day Tonight, 19720704, ^http://abceducation.net.au/~abceduca/videolibrary/view/lake-pedders-future-74 [View Video – ensure volume is turned up first] [10]     ‘Whatever happened to Brenda Hean?‘ ^http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s2367992.htm

[11]  ‘Whatever happened to Brenda Hean?‘, by Scott Millwood, ^http://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=94&book=9781741756111

Remembering Brenda Hean

In ‘Pedder’, Brenda had found her spiritual centre.

.

---

.

Whilst touring Tasmania’s highland country in 2009, we stopped over in the old rural town of Bothwell.

A pastoral Bothwell ~ an ode to the British countryside

looking from Barrack Hill over the River Clyde

(Photo by Editor 2009, free in Public Domain)

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

.

Bothwell is historically known for its colonial exploration dating back to 1806, its convict past dating back to the 1820’s, and for its soldiers’ barracks, and for its pastoral colonial heritage.

Its namesake was derived from a town in Lanarkshire, Scotland; likewise the naming of the River Clyde.

Bothwell

Situated in the Tasmanian South East Bioregion

.

Few will know of the prior Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage of the 5 bands of the traditional Tasmanian tribe (kinship group) the ‘Teen Toomle Mennenyer‘ of this highland and river region.  Many were either massacred, rounded up and put into missions, or succumbed to European diseases.  Most were dispersed from their traditional lands by 1832.  This otherwise labelled ‘Big River Tribe‘ likely due to the big river country characterising this fertile inland region; rivers of which subsequently named the Derwent, Ouse, Clyde, Shannon, Weld, Styx, Plenty, Jordan, Lake, Isis and Pine, amongst others.

Traditional Aboriginal Territories of Tasmania

.

Even fewer will know of the extensive tall Tasmanian Swamp Gum forest that for thousands for years blanketed this lush river valley, prior to it being clear-felled for timber and to make way for colonial pasture.

‘Dead Heritage’

Stump of a Tasmanian Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus regnans)

on Barrack Hill, overlooking Bothwell

 

(Photo by Editor 2009, free in Public Domain

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

.

‘Tasmanian Natural Heritage’

Tasmanian Swamp Gum

 

The type of  Swamp Gum forest around Bothwell

that would have greeted the colonists back in the 1820s

 

(© Photo Magi Nams)

 

Source: http://www.nams.ca/MagiBlog/tag/tasmanian-snow-gum/page/2/

.

.

Fifty kilometres down the road from Bothwell on the tourist drive, lies the old colonial town of Oatlands. The old Callington Flour Mill in the town has become a tourist attraction and has recently been restored aided by a $1.2 million grant by Australia’s Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, in 2007.

‘Tasmanian Colonial Heritage’

Oatlands’ Wind Mill

 

The 1837 landmark Callington Flour Mill, recently restored

 

(Photo by editor, September 2009, free in Public Domain)

.

 

Part of that restoration involved adding new structural posts in its interior.  The following photo is of  a rather new looking hardwood post inside the mill.  It looks like local Messmate/Stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua), generically marketed as ‘Tasmanian Oak‘.

.

Other local timbers sold as ‘Tasmanian Oak’ are Alpine Ash (Eucalyptus delegatensis) and Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus regnans).

On Mainland Australia, Eucalytus regnans is referred to as Mountain Ash ~ once the world’s tallest tree species, once taller than the Californian Redwood.

The environmental cost of  Tasmanian Tourism

A new ten inch (wide) post inside Oatlands’ restored mill,

probably from local Messmate/Stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua)

(Photo by editor, September 2009, free in Public Domain)

.

.

.

.

---

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]   ‘The Traditional Tasmanians‘, ^http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter52/5-Tasmania-traditional/traditional.htm [Read More]

.

– end of article –

.

Gunns’ must really be loaded to commit $2.2 billion on a pulp mill in Tasmania’s Tamar Valley.

Not many companies have that sort of money and certainly not in cash-strapped Tasy.   But with access to so much financial capital, why waste it on 20th Century logging?  Tasmania has so much economic potential using 21st Century thinking and think what a smart $2.2 billion could otherwise benefit Tasmania’s future, without 19th Century exploitation?

The money to build such a pulp mill has to come from somewhere and it appears Gunns’ may have found a financial joint venture backer in Finnish pulp giant, UPM-Kymmene Oyj.

[Source:   ‘Finnish firm UPM eyes stake in Gunns pulp mill‘, by journalist Matthew Denholm, The Australian, 20110209].

Gunns tries to claim that it’s motive is all about forestry jobs for Tasmanians.  But once UPM gets a foothold in Tasmania, check UPM’s record with jobs…

.

“In September 2008 UPM announced another cost reduction program that includes layoffs thousands of employees, and its Kajaani paper mill and Tervasaari pulp mill will be closed altogether. These will be the largest layoffs ever in Finland.

In March 2006 UPM announced a cost reduction program that includes layoffs approximately 3,600 employees, nearly 3,000 of those in Finland, and its Voikkaa paper mill in Kuusankoski was closed altogether. This was the largest single layoff ever in Finland. This is attributed[by whom?] to the worldwide overproduction of paper.

UPM announced the permanent closure of a large mill complex in Miramichi, New Brunswick on December 17 2007, citing economic pressures in the North American forest industry.”

 

[Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPM_%28company%29 ]

.

Greg L’Estrange, Gunns’ replacement CEO for John Gay since July 2009, seems to be tasked with getting the pulp mill up and running no matter what the cost, no matter what spin doctoring efforts are employed to secure government approval.  Somehow his deal making has succeeded in government fast-tracking of the assessment process.

.

On 25th November 2010, Gunns released a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange stating that the pulp mill project remained on track. This is Gunn’s ‘do-or-die‘  single corporate strategy. It has no plan B. . L’Estrange’s initial ploy was to remove the motive driving Gunns’ key enemies.  Gunns’ declared a moratorium on native forest logging across Tasmania.  It was clearly a bid to secure Forestry Standard Certification, to comply with new Japanese buyer benchmarks; rather than any noble recognition of native forest conservation values.

.

Then  L’Estrange concocted Gunn’s Forest Statement of Principles and armed with this did a secret forest peace deal late last year with local greenie groups.  L’Estrange sold it as a new greener Gunns’ “working with environment groups to create a future without conflict.”  Consistent with strategy, the ‘Tassie Talks’ deal it was all about quelling Tasmanian public dissent and he quickly branded the deal pivotal to the Tasmanian forest industry and ‘historic’.  Be seen to be green! Whatever it takes! Except environmental groups deny they have given the green light to Gunns Tamar valley pulp mill by signing the deal. There’s that greenwashing term again – ‘sustainable‘.  It’s become an abused and hollow marketing euphemism really about corporate ‘financial viability‘ in the exploitation of natural resources.  Such corporations shy from using the term ‘triple bottom line’  any more, because it is harder to promote when one is only focused on the bottom line. And there’s fresh water demand of the mill and the marine effluent it will spew, which L’Estrange has tried to allay concerns claiming new pulp bleaching  technology promises to reduced toxic outflow of chlorine dioxide by some 40%.  Despite the promise of ‘stricter controls’ an expected 64,000 tonnes of effluent will still be released by the pulp mill into Bass Strait daily.  And it won’t harm marine life?

‘At its annual general meeting in November, Gunns told shareholders that modelling work showed the mill would have no impact on marine ecosystems, but Environment Tasmania said it was still concerned about the effect of up to 51 gigalitres a year of industrial effluent being discharged into the sea.’

[Source:   ‘Promise of greener hue to pulp mill at final hour‘, 20110304]

.

Securing Gunns’ shareholder backing, L’Etrange at Gunns’ recent annual general meeting, drew a line in the sand claiming the moratorium on native forest logging (the greenie forest deal) was now conditional on the Tamar Valley pulp mill going ahead.  If the greenies want to keep Tasmania’s native forests, they must agree on the pulp mill proceeding. The ‘Tassie Talks’ deal was always a loaded gunn deal.

“We believe that the development of the Bell Bay Pulp Mill will be the centrepiece of this strategy for the modern industry in Tasmania.”

[Source:   ‘Pulp mill key, says Gunns‘, by journalist Sue Neales, 20101125]

.

Of course it’s all rather reminiscent of Gunn’s heavy-handed power playing under John Gay.  The Gunns’ Board hasing changed; only its front man.  This latest greenwashing approach is one of image rebranding and loaded deals, all the while Gunns’ pulp mill strategy remains on track. L’Estrange plays good cop while the pulp mill unswervingly looms as Tasmania’s big bad cop.

.

Tasmania’s natural heritage is Tasmania’s future… whether dead in a museum like its Thylacene or alive and precious…is ultimately an existence decision for local Tasmanians.

Tasmania’s unique Celery Top Pine

[Source: Veronica Tyquin, WARRA (long-term ecological research)

http://www.warra.com/warra/research_projects/research_project_WRA108.html]

 

.

---

.

Update News Friday 20110311:  ‘Contentious pulp mill wins federal approval’

.

Yesterday L’Estrange must have earned his executive performance bonus following Labor’s federal Environment Minister, Tony Burke, announcing government approval for the pulp mill to proceed.  L’Estrange’s comment was that the decision brought certainty for proposed investors in the pulp mill project, now estimated to cost $2.3 billion, pre-cost blowout, pre-government subsidies. (‘Contentious pulp mill wins federal approval’, SMH, 20110311)

.
Upon gaining the final three environmental permits Gunns needs for the mill, Gunns shares rose 5.88% to close at $0.63.  (Finnewsnetwork.com.au, 20110311).  Certainly a ‘sustainable’ result for L’Estrange.
Gunn’s pulp mill will perpetuate 20th Century logging across Tasmania. It will continue to make Tasmanian rural communities dependent on one industry and vulnerable to the whims of one employer – Gunns.

.
Gunns’ spin is that the mill will only use timber from plantations, capitalising on the fact that those plantations were planted as a result of clear felling destruction of Tasmania’s rare native forests.   According to The Wilderness Society, Gunns’ wood supply deal with Forestry Tasmania commits it to supplying a million tonnes a year of native forest for the next twenty years. (‘Gunns’ proposed pulp mill, The Wilderness Society, 20110310)

.

So Gunns’ ‘plantation only’ claim is false and misleading.

.

The mill will spew odorous fumes downwind through the Tamar Valley forcing thousands of residents of this rural region to breathe polluted and toxic air and contaminate local horticultural producers such as vineyards.  The mill is forecast to consume fresh water equivalent of the combined use of all water users across Northern Tasmania, according to The Wilderness Society there. (‘Gunns’ pulp mill impacts – Environment, heritage, economy and community threatened, The Wilderness Society, 20100530).

.

Gunns’ mill is still set to spill 64,000 litres of toxic chlorine, dioxins and furans a day from its chemical pulping process into the Tamar River and downstream into Bass Strait.  That it will obviously pollute the surrounding waters, kill marine wildlife, poison and permanently contaminate marine habitat, and destroy the local fishing industry; Burke has still managed to find a way to approve the bloody mill!

“I’m only doing what my requirements are under the Act. We’ve got some very specific requirements on environmental approvals. I’m delivering on that.” – Tony Burke. (‘Milne: Pulp mill approval a corrupt process’, ABC TV Lateline, 20110310)

Burke in the same week, managed to push through legislation to allow Sydney’s Barrangaroo development avoid the cost of a heavy metals clean up, while at the same time stuck to the letter of the law with his approval of Gunns’ pulp mill.  Can there be no clearer display of pro-development bias? Laws for some!
But then Burke’s bias is predicable,  given he came to the portfolio from the other side of the fence, as Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; and his quick rise from the NSW right faction.  (‘Gunns deal a shedding of responsibility, by Andrew Darby, The Age, 20110311)
According to federal Greens Senator Christine Milne responding on last night’s Lateline programme:

“There has never been a thorough and rigorous assessment (of the pulp mill) because Paul Lennon, former Premier of Tasmania together with John Gay, managed to pull it out of the proper assessment process (at State level), fast-track it through the Tasmanian Parliament…so what we have got here is a project that has been through a corrupt assessment process.”

Milne is factually correct.  There was no rigorous assessment of the Bell Bay site. The Tasmanian assessment process was corrupt, the community was denied a say, the democratic process was abused.  The mill has no social license to operate.  It is illegitimate and Gunns’ development actions are one of a corporate and political bully imposing its selfish shortsighted greed on Tasmania and Tasmanians.

.

Gunn’s Bell Bay pulp mill will not only degrade the region, but dominate the northern heart of Tasmania. On Google Earth it will show up like a festering sore poisoning a diminishing green forested Tasmania.

L’Estrange borrowed Labor’s classic dirty tactic of divide and conquer to stymie opposition and protests from Tasmanian conservation groups. His deal has seeded a split between conservationists and the Greens over the pulp mill.  He has lured local conservationists to compromise with the offer to  surrender Gunns’ contract rights to 220,000 cubic metres of native forest saw logs a year and to protect an extra 600,000ha of forests.  Even Labor’s appointed negotiator Bill Kelty has been brought in to clench a forest peace deal with select conservationists.  The Wilderness Society in Tasmania, together with Environment Tasmania and the Australian Conservation Foundation seem to be coming on board backing down on their opposition to the pulp mill.  They are now at odds with the Tasmanian Greens who are a little more savvy about the hollow politics and promises.

“It looks as though somebody wants to save some high conservation value forests, but is sacrificing the Tamar Valley to get them”, says Tamar Valley resident and mill opponent Peter Cundall.  (Greens v Greens on Gunns pulp mill, The Australian, 20110304)

Site of proposed Gunns’ pulp mill, Bell Bay, Tamar Valley

Photo:  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/10/3160890.htm

.

.

---

.

The editor agrees with the following selected comments posted in The Australian to the article ‘Greens v Greens on Gunns pulp mill, 20110304:

.

By James McMaugh’:

“The mill will never be built. The people are opposed and are right not to trust Gunns. There will be a huge outcry and mass protests blockading construction. I will travel to Tasmania and so will many others to make sure of this. The proposal is dead.

It’s about time politicians listened to the people and business should too. You cannot run roughshod over the will of the people and they don’t want this mill. Overwhelmingly they don’t. It will cost more jobs than it creates and destroy the river. No, no and no to this mill.”

.

By ‘Chris B of Australia’:

“The only acceptable outcome is NO Pulp Mill at all in Tasmania. Gunns has no credibility and has proven time and again how they cannot be trusted by the community. I personally believe there is no place for a company like Gunns in Tasmania and they should make transition plans for their workforce to move to a sustainable industry.
The environmental groups willing to compromise the values and allow Gunns to sacrifice the Tamar Valley should be ashamed of themselves. Make no mistake, the pulp mill will completely and utterly degrade the environment of the Tamar Valley and Bass Strait, no matter which form it takes.”

.

By ‘SW’:

“ Senator Milne speaks for me. Thank you, Christine, for maintaining the rage. It certainly hasn’t died down here in the Tamar Valley.”

.

By ‘Robert of Adelaide’:

“ Same old argument of lack of development, growth, jobs, high crime etc. The same attitude is taken in the case of the Brazilian Rainforest as well. Where does it stop and what will we actually be left with in 100 years? Oh, that’s right, we won’t be here, so who cares… If people want employment, go to where the jobs are in the rest of the country and the world like everyone else is doing! And while you are working in places like Sydney, London, Beijing, Tokyo and Bangkok… reflect on how wonderful development has been for these these concrete infested cities! Then maybe we can appreciate what we have here.”

.

 

.

---

.

‘Green movement outguns Gunns’  [20110311]

.

…’Gunns had gone so far as to sue an elected politician, the Greens leader, Bob Brown.

“When I got the writ,” says Brown, “I knew better than to call the lawyers. The first thing I did was to call a press conference. Within 24 hours we had a candlelight vigil for democracy, in Hobart. It was like the Prague Spring.”

Ultimately, Gunns underestimated its opposition and its decision to sue backfired spectacularly.
Far from being cowed by the suit, Marr and his colleagues ramped up an environmental campaign the likes of which had not been seen in this country – targeting the Gunns bankers and shareholders, Japanese customers and European partners – which ultimately brought the company to its knees, decimating its market value and ousting its divisive chairman, Gay.

.
..It was left to the new chief executive, Greg L’Estrange, to concede defeat last September, and promise that Gunns would get out of native forest logging altogether. Despite this week’s federal approval of the mill, and the talks over a Tassie forests peace deal, Gunns is by no means out of the woods. A long, painful process of rebuilding trust with former enemies is only beginning.

.

Gunns was once a corporate powerhouse. A series of acquisitions in 2000-01 turned it into Australia’s largest export woodchipper, and No. 1 target for the environment movement.

..’A bulked-up Gunns put the pedal to the metal. This was logging on an industrial scale. Between 2000 and 2006, working with Forestry Tasmania, Gunns clear-felled 110,966 hectares of native forest, 90 per cent of the timber being used for woodchipping and 58% of the land making way for timber plantations.

“Gunns got unlimited amounts of other people’s money and went on a clearing binge,” says Marr.

The forest was clear-felled and waste burnt off using napalm-like incendiaries. Gunns used 1080 poison bait to protect seedlings, inflicting gruesome death on untold native animals and risking the health of forest workers.

.

Whether from strength or desperation, Gunns launched its ill-fated suit. The company’s shares hit their all-time peak a month later, at $4.38, and began to slide downwards.  The story of the Gunns 20 suit, which dragged on until last year and was ultimately settled at a cost to the company of $2.8 million – including $1.3 million paid to the Wilderness Society – has been well told. Perhaps less well understood is the international backlash the case triggered.

The decision in 2008 by the new ANZ chief, Mike Smith, to refuse finance for the pulp mill, quickly followed by the other big banks, was unprecedented in this country and followed a strong online petition campaign by the Wilderness Society and the online activist group GetUp!After a decade’s lobbying, Japanese paper-makers decided in February last year not to accept Gunns wood unless it was Forest Stewardship Council- controlled.

.

Shares in Gunns are off their lows but the company’s future remains uncertain. Bob Brown says if Gunns ”doesn’t survive – and I hope it does – it will be nobody’s fault except the board’s”.

.

[Source:  ‘Green movement outguns Gunns, by Paddy Manning, Sydney Morning Herald, News Review, p 6,

 

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/green-movement-outguns-gunns-20110311-1br8m.html]

---

.

References

.

[1] ‘Contentious pulp mill wins federal approval’, by Andrew Darby and Dylan Welch, 20110311, Sydney Morning Herald,  http://www.smh.com.au/environment/contentious-pulp-mill-wins-federal-approval-20110310-1bpt4.html]

.
[2] ‘Gunns’ proposed pulp mill’, The Wilderness Society, 20110310, http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/gunns-pulp-mill
.

[3] Greens v Greens on Gunns pulp mill, by Matthew Denholm and Matthew Franklin, The Australian, 20110304, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-v-greens-on-gunns-pulp-mill/story-fn59niix-1226015622300

.

[4] http://www.finnewsnetwork.com.au/archives/finance_news_network17216.html

.

[5] Photo: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/10/3160890.htm

.

[6] http://www.watoday.com.au/national/green-movement-outguns-gunns-20110311-1br8m.html

– end of article –

by Editor 20100810.

The following article appeared on ABC Television in Tasmania (Australia), Friday 16th July 2010.

---

‘Scientists are concerned about a decline in eastern quoll numbers in Tasmania.

The eastern quoll is a carnivorous marsupial and is sometimes known as a native cat.

Scientists predicted quoll numbers would rise as the tasmanian devil population was decimated by the facial tumour disease.

But spotlighting survey work has shown numbers have fallen by half.

University of Tasmania honours student, Bronwyn Fancourt, is now doing more detailed survey work but says initial results are concerning.

“We really need to protect these guys because we don’t want to see them end up as another thylacine,” she said.

Blood samples and measurements will be taken for further research into why the species is in decline.’

---

Further reading on the plight of Quolls in Tasmania:

[The following article was extracted from the Tasmanian Times of 15th May 2010, by Nick Mooney, Richmond (Tasmania), ^http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/cynical-dismissal-of-substantial-material-evidence ].

‘Cynical dismissal of substantial material evidence‘

[This article was extracted from the Hobart Mercury of 16-July 2010, by Charkes Waterhouse, http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/07/16/159131_tasmania-news.html ].

‘Another native Tasmanian species is under threat, with the population of eastern quolls falling around the state.

The decline has alarmed experts as the eastern quoll was expected to thrive to fill the void left by falling numbers of disease-ravaged Tasmanian devils.

The University of Tasmania and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment will investigate the extent of the falling population.

DPIPWE threatened species zoologist Clare Hawkins said the study would provide scientific data on the status of the species.

She said annual spotlighting information suggested the population of the eastern quoll had declined.

“It does appear quite complicated as at the same time there are areas of the state, such as Bruny Island, where landowners are reporting they have never seen so many eastern quolls,” she said.

“It may be that in some areas of the state they remain in high numbers, whereas other parts of Tasmania have had declines, or it may be that in some areas they are coming into closer contact with the urban environment making them more observed, which could be masking an overall decline.”

University of Tasmania zoology honours student Bronwyn Fancourt said a systematic survey would provide scientific information on the wild population, building on information about population changes and showing whether there were areas where increases or decreases had occurred.

“Tasmania is the last stronghold for the eastern quoll as it is now presumed extinct on mainland Australia, which highlights the importance of having scientific data on what the population is doing,” Ms Fancourt said.

She said the survey was taking place through a trap-and-release program at various sites.

Information from this program and any other data collected could help an understanding of possible contributory factors if the quolls were in decline.

---

‘Foxes, quolls, devils and 1080‘

[This article is extracted from the Tasmanian Times, 24-Nov-2006, by wildlife biologist Nick Mooney,^ http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/nick2/].

Assessing the Risks

When assessing the risks of 1080 fox baiting to individuals or populations of any particular species a number of things should be taken into account, including:

• The physiological sensitivity of the species to 1080 poison (depends on many things principal amongst them the historic exposure of the species to 1080 as it occurs in Australian plants), something that can be experimentally measured.

• How many baits the species might find (depends on the sensory abilities of the animal, how, where and the number of baits placed in a given area — the landscape density).

• How many baits the species might eat within a certain period. To cause death, a lethal dose has to be ingested in a certain time — usually within 2 days because sub lethal doses of 1080 are metabolised. Dried meat baits are too hard for many species to do more than mouth and nibble but many species can eat other baits such as Foxoff (eg non toxic bait trials — Belcher 1998 and DPIW data). There is evidence some species can detect 1080 in baits and avoid eating them (eg the spotted-tailed quoll in Foxoff baits, Kortner et al 2003).

• How much 1080 is left in baits when they are eaten (if they are decomposing, 1080 will have also degraded to a comparable degree).

• The likelihood of the species digesting baits (many carnivores and omnivores regurgitate food containing significant amounts of 1080. There are past records of devils regurgitating 1080-laced food in captive trials).

• The age and health of the individual eating the bait or carcasses of poisoned animals (smaller individuals of a species likely have higher metabolisms and consequent usual higher sensitivity to 1080 and healthy individuals likely have more resistance to 1080)

• The size of individuals in the population at baiting (size effects metabolism and consequent susceptibility to 1080. Individuals of the same species might be different in size in different populations, eg devils on the east coast of Tasmania are much larger than west coast individuals, and there may be many small juveniles just after breeding).

• How the species’ range and abundance overlaps with 1080 baiting (the proportion of the species that might be exposed to baiting).

Physiological sensitivity

The level of physiological sensitivity of a species to 1080 is usually described as the species’ LD50 – that is the mg of 1080 ingested per kg of animal during a very short period that will kill 50% of the individuals exposed (LD = Lethal Dose). Most of the research on LD50s for Australian animals and the potential impacts of 1080 was done on captive animals decades ago by Dr John McIlroy, then at CSIRO, and published in various issues of Australian Wildlife Research (eg McIlroy, 1981a, 1981b and 1981c) and he still gives occasional advice on the matter to DPIW. It is doubtful if this work could ever be substantially expanded or repeated because it involves lethal testing.

LD50s for some Tasmanian animals of obvious interest as potential non-target consumers of fox baits (mainly dried kangaroo meat but also some Foxoff meat compound) are

We see that kg-for-kg, red foxes are over 13 times as sensitive to 1080 as are spotted-tailed quolls and 30 times as sensitive as devils. The LD50 for spotted-tailed quolls is lower than might be expected considering those for its relatives, the eastern quoll and Tasmanian devil. McIlroy has expressed the opinion the small sample size and temperatures the results were obtained under may have given a too low result. This is born up by most mainland research that shows little effect of fox and wild dog baiting on spotted-tailed quolls (eg Kortner et al 2003).

Persistence of 1080 in baits

In the field, 1080 breaks down by microbe and fungal activity. Meat baits as used in Tasmania are about 120g of fresh kangaroo meat, each dosed with 3mg of 1080 dried hard to about 40g for storage then use (eg Saunders et al 1995). By the time they are set (buried) some 1080 is already broken down and on average they then only contain 2.7mg – a 10% loss. Once buried, degradation of 1080 accelerates, the rate depending on soil conditions (particularly moisture and temperature) and consequent baits degradation. Such degradation of 1080 is well known (eg Saunders et al 2000).

Tasmanian 1080 fox dried meat baits have been tested after different times in the ground in field conditions and on average after 2 days in the ground only 43.3% of 1080 remained, after 5 days there was 28.2% left, after 10 days 19.7% and after 15 days 11.6%. However, there was considerable variation even between neighbouring baits; some in wet places have much less 1080 residue and some in dry places much more than the average.

Number of baits needed to put individuals at risk

Considering the sensitivity of spotted-tailed quolls, devils and foxes to 1080 and degradation of 1080 in buried baits we can calculate how many baits buried for various times need to be eaten by different sized spotted-tailed quolls, devils and foxes within 2 days to have a 50% chance of being killed.

We see below that a very small spotted-tailed quoll will consume an LD50 if it eats most of one freshly layed bait but that same animal would have to eat at least 5 baits within 2 days once they had been in the ground for two weeks to be at similar risk. Similarly a very large spotted-tailed quoll would have to eat more than 4 freshly layed baits to be at risk but more than 30 after two weeks in the ground.

We see below that even a very small devil (probably not even weaned) needs to eat more than 3 freshly layed baits within 2 days to reach an LD50 and large devils need to eat very many baits in a short period to reach an LD50.

We see that foxes are extremely susceptible to 1080 baiting and in many circumstances need less than 1 bait to reach an LD50.

The chances of individuals finding enough baits in a short enough period to be at risk

Extensive testing with foxes on mainland Australia clearly shows they can find baits immediately they are buried; initial take is often high and usually continues until baits and/or foxes are greatly reduced (eg Saunders et al 1995). Limited testing with Foxoff and fresh meat baits with captive and wild spotted-tailed quolls in NSW showed they could detect buried baits but trials only identified this species as taking 2 of 7 baits taken after 3-4 weeks buried adjacent to a spotted-tailed latrine in the wild (Belcher 1998); results consistent with Tasmanian observations considering time buried and that baits were replaced exactly where taken (see below).

Research on take of fox baits without 1080 was undertaken with an isolated, island population of devils (no quolls or foxes present). Initial take was very low (a few % per night) but escalated once baits began to rot, to the point where most baits were taken after 3 weeks. These results were mirrored in places with devils and spotted-tailed quolls, devils and eastern quolls and eastern quolls alone; there are no places exclusively with spotted-tailed quolls in Tasmania. If baits were replaced in a hole where a previous bait had rotted then re-take could be immediate but if placed in a new hole take was very low. Devils in particular would sometimes deeply excavate holes in which baits had rotted.

It seems devils and quolls are not well equipped to find buried baits until they rot or are otherwise smelly (or replaced); probably there has been no need in their evolution. On the other hand, foxes and dogs evolved under conditions of extremely harsh winters where caching and recovering food (or raiding others’ caches) was fundamental to survival. Therefore, these canids are ‘professionals’ at finding buried food (eg Saunders et al 1995, Twigg et al 2000). This does not mean that other species cannot find any buried baits or might even be exposed accidentally (eg during echidna excavations) but it is a clear trend.

There has been considerable questioning of what animals have taken the thousands of baits of the nearly 80,000 sofar set in Tasmania. Checking baits daily allows a reasonable judgment of what might have taken them and in the early days of baiting (2002/3) when daily checks were undertaken about 20 baits were recorded as taken in typical fox style (as seen else where in Australia). Once baiting expanded and baits were only checked at recovery such judgments of take could rarely be made; hence the experiments reported here. If baits were recovered 2-3 weeks after burial few were missing but if it was 3 weeks or more most might be – it seemed a simple fact of rotting and then being found.

In operational fox baiting in Tasmania, baits are buried at a landscape density of 5-10/km2. The number of baits in an animal’s home range can also be considered and how much competition there might be for baits. A large devil might have 100 baits in its home range but that home range would likely be shared by 10-30 other devils plus quolls (and possibly foxes). Thus, the baits available per individual are comparatively few.

The chances of individuals eating enough baits in a short enough period to be at risk

Although they can easily eat soft baits, test have shown that small or even medium sized spotted-tailed quolls and very small devils do not (probably can not) eat very dry and hard baits and it is not until they are independent that they are likely to be under enough nutritional pressure and are strong enough to eat such. Tests on captive mainland Australian spotted-tailed quolls support these results (Belcher 2000).

What actually happens in the field?

Considerable research has been done on effects of 1080 fox baiting on spotted-tailed quolls on mainland Australia (eg Kortner ET al 2003). In Tasmania, experimental 1080 baiting was not carried out but rather, research waited until an operational baiting occurred in an area with enough spotted-tailed quolls to usefully study (near Wynyard).

Although there were too few quolls in the study sites area (and a comparative control site with no baiting) to have statistically robust comparisons of numbers before and after baiting we found individual spotted-tailed quolls similarly persisted in both areas through and after baiting. Importantly, there were breeding females (with pouch young) and free ranging juveniles present in both sites after baiting; there was no identifiable difference between baited and non-baited sites. This work will be repeated as opportunity presents.

In the northern midlands where the effects of 1080 fox baiting on devils was being studied, there was also a ‘background’ population of spotted-tailed quolls. Trapping after a prolonged baiting period showed all elements of a normal devil population in place – breeders and juveniles with no apparent drop in density. Perhaps most interestingly, in the months after this research a substantial drop in numbers of devils due to Devil Facial Tumour Disease occurred and in another 6 months numbers of spotted-tailed quoll seemed to have measurably increased (probably due to decreased competition and predation from the fewer devils) and has stayed high with an apparently normal mix of breeders and juveniles. DFTD it seems has absolutely overwhelming effects (even if indirect) compared to fox baiting.

In an area in which Foxoff meat compound baits were operationally used extensive capture-mark-recapture studies were done of large local populations of Tasmanian bettongs Bettongia giamardi and brushtail possums Truchosaurus vulpecula, two species likely to eat these baits. Very few Foxoff baits were taken and there was no difference in population change between the baited site and a control site.

These Tasmanian ‘pilot’ studies suggest there is little if any damage to local populations of spotted-tailed quoll, Tasmanian devils, Tasmanian bettongs or brushtail possum from 1080 fox baiting in Tasmania as is known to have severe effects on fox populations on mainland Australia (eg Saunders et al 1995).

State-wide Effects

A final check can be made by looking at what proportion of Tasmania’s spotted-tailed quoll and devil population might be exposed to 1080 fox baiting. Sofar, 1080 fox baiting has only touched the fringe of Tasmania’s core spotted-tailed quoll habitat and perhaps less than 2-3% of Tasmania’s spotted-tailed quolls have been in baited areas. Similarly perhaps 5% of Tasmania’s devils have been in baited areas. These areas and percentages may increase by half with planned fox baiting but, even then the reality is little or no effect on a small proportion of the State’s populations of these important species.

References

1. Belcher, C. (1998). Susceptibility of the tiger quoll, Dasyurus maculatus, and the eastern quoll D. viverrinus, to 1080-poisoned baits in control programmes for vertebrate pests in eastern Australia. Wildlife Research 25, 33-40.
2. Belcher, C. (2000). The ecology of the Tiger Quoll Dasyurus maculatus, in south-eastern Australia. Unpublished PhD thesis, Deakin Uni.
3. Kortner, G., Gresser, S. and B. Harden (2003). Does fox baiting threaten the spotted-tailed quoll, Dasyurus maculatus? Wildlife Research 30, 111-118.
4. McIlroy, J. C. (1981a). The sensitivity of Australian mammals to 1080 poison. 1. Intraspecific variation and factors effecting acute toxicity. Australian Wildlife Research 8, 369-383.
5. McIlroy, J. C. (1981b). The sensitivity of Australian mammals to 1080 poison. 11. Marsupial and eutherian carnivores. Australian Wildlife Research 8, 385-399.
6. McIlroy, J.C. (1981). The sensitivity of Australian animals to 1080 poison.1X. Comparisons between the major groups of animals, and the potential danger non-target species face from 1080 poisoning campaigns. Australian wildlife Research 13, 39-48.
7. Saunders, G., McLeod, S. and B. Kay (2000). Degradation of sodium monoflouroacetate (1080) in buried fox baits. Wildlife Research 27, 129-135.
8. Twigg, L., Eldridge, S., Edwards, G., Shakeshaft, B., dePeru, N. and N. Adams (2000). The longevity and efficacy of 1080 meat baits used for dingo control in central Australia). Wildlife Research 27, 473-481.

Other Useful Reading

Kinnear, J.E. (2003). Eradicating the fox in Tasmania: A review of the Fox Free Tasmania Program. Unpublished report to DPIWE, Hobart.
Saunders, G., Coman, B., Kinnear, J. and M. Braysher (1995). Managing vertebrate pests: Foxes. Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra
Saunders, G., Lane, C., Harris, S. and C. Dickman (2006). Foxes in Tasmania: A Report on the Incursion of an Invasive Species. IACRC, Canberra.

Nick Mooney is a wildlife biologist with DPIW and has been working with Tasmanian wildlife for more than 30 years. Amongst other hats, he pioneered Tasmanian rehabilitation and conservation of raptors including eagles in forestry, has monitored reports of Thylacines and foxes, helped with responses to newly discovered diseases, whale strandings and oil spills and developed practical conservation of devils and innovative wildlife tourism. Most recently he kicked off the response to Devil facial Tumour Disease and has been giving advice for the response to recent evidence of foxes in Tasmania. Nick is assessing the potential ecological effects of DFTD, foxes and cats; he sees the biggest ecological threat as establishment of foxes because of DFTD, a process that could cause the ultimate long term threat to devils (his favourite animal).

Nick Mooney

There has been a recent spate of public concern over the effect that 1080 baiting targeting the red fox Vulpes vulpes in Tasmania might have on the spotted-tailed quoll Dasyurus maculatus and the Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii.

Considerable research has been done on that quoll species on mainland Australia, studies augmented by work in Tasmania on both it and devils.

---

‘Foxes, quolls, devils and 1080 #2‘

[This article is extracted from the Tasmanian Times, 27-Nov-2006, by David Obendorf,^ http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/obis1/].

AS NICK MOONEY states: ‘Most of the research on lethal dose to 50% (LD50) for Australian animals and the potential impacts of 1080 was done on captive animals decades ago by John McIlroy, then at CSIRO, and published in various issues of Australian Wildlife Research. It is doubtful if this work could ever be substantially expanded or repeated because it involves lethal testing.’  (Foxes, quolls, devils and 1080)

With DPIW poised to embark on a decade-long $56 million dollar fox eradication campaign using 1080 meat baits as the principle eradication tool, I believe there are several very good reasons why 1080 testing of non-target Tasmanian species exposed to these baits must now be repeated. For Tasmanian wildlife authorities to rely solely on this unrepeated toxicological data would be reckless.
John McIlroy commenced his work on the sensitivity of Australian animals to the poison 1080 (Sodium Fluoroacetate) a quarter of a century ago. John was a research scientist working at the CSIRO Division of Wildlife Research at Gunghalin near Canberra. During the period from 1980-86 he conducted a series of dose-response experiments to assess the sensitivity of 1080 on a representative range of Australian animals, covering species in all the main vertebrate taxa. He published 9 scientific papers in this series; 7 as the sole author and 2 in collaboration with others.

In documenting his research findings, John was careful to firstly prepare the theoretical and statistical ground work on which this series of experimentally-based toxicity would be based (McIlroy 1981a).

“In toxicological work the sensitivity of different [species of] animals to a poison is usually expressed as the LD50 or median lethal dose, a statistical estimate of the dose — in milligrams of poison per kilogram body weight, that will kill 50%  of a large population.

The LD50 of a poison and its 95% confidence limits are only an indication of the values that might be expected from repeated trials on the same strain of animals under the same experimental conditions.”

In applying the LD50 values to a test poison, McIlroy states:

“The necessity for such a standardised procedure has been questioned … [as] statistically significant differences in LD50 values (up to 3.2 fold) within and between laboratories, related to differences in experimental procedure, …  [but] these were not great enough to change the interpretation of the relative hazards of the test chemical involved. However, because I was concerned with a controversial poison [1080] and its toxicity to a variety of wild animals, I felt it was important to assess the effects that differences in experimental procedure might have on LD50 values of 1080 and, if necessary, design a procedure to minimize such sources of variation.” (McIlroy 1981a)

In his second paper detailing the results of his experimental studies on marsupials and placental mammals, John began on a cautionary note:

“The effect that these [1080] poisoning campaigns are having on non-target or native animal populations is not known, despite occasional reports of individuals of these species being found dead or ‘vanishing’ from areas in which 1080 has been used.” (McIlroy 1981b).

Targeting dingoes

McIlroy was very considered in any reliance of these experimentally derived LD50 values:

“In reality many factors are involved in determining whether an individual or what proportion of a population may be killed by a [1080] poisoning campaign. The preceding theoretical analysis involved mean body weights of only small samples of animals, LD50s obtained under specific experimental conditions, and a particular concentration of 1080 in each bait plus the assumptions about bait intake by free-living species. All are likely to vary in different field situations, altering the risk each individual carnivore faces.”

Based on 1080 baiting campaigns targeting dingoes (& wild dogs), John McIlroy made some thoughtful recommendations when deciding on the most effective bait size and quantity of 1080 per bait for maximal kill of target species and minimal impact to non-target (native) species.

“The data on [1080] sensitivities do provide fundamental information for the planning of dingo-poisoning operations. For example, if the aim is to obtain maximal control with minimum dose it would be best to plan the baiting on the basis of a LD100 based on twice the upper confidence limit of the LD50 and the weight of the heaviest specimen reported. In contrast, to assess the hazard to a non-target species, calculations might be best based on the lower confidence limit of the LD50, or some other lower figure, and either the mean weight or much lower body weights of, for instance, immature animals.”

McIlroy went on to do a theoretical calculation to show this point for dingoes (the target carnivore) and spotted-tail quolls (a non-target carnivore).

“The heaviest individual [dingo] caught in the Eastern Highlands was 25 kg. Thus if the LD100 is assumed to be approximately twice the upper confidence limit of the LD50 (i.e. 0.3mg/kg BW), it would be necessary to get 7.5 mg of 1080 into a dog of this size to kill it. Similar calculations for tiger cats [spotted-tail quolls], using twice the lower confidence limit of the LD50 (i.e. 2.56 mg/kg BW) and taking the mean body weight of 2.8 kg, indicate that 7.17 mg of 1080 is a lethal dose for [this species].

Applying McIlroy’s precautionary recommendation to the mean body weight for immature spotted-tail quolls of 1.1 kg, only 2.8 mg of 1080 is a lethal dose.

Obtain a lethal dose

The same theoretical calculation and logic can be applied can be applied to 1080 poisoning campaigns targeting foxes.

For an extreme body weight fox of 6 kg and applying an LD100 that is approximately twice the upper confidence limit of the LD50 (i.e. 0.26mg/kg BW), it would be necessary to get a fox to consume 1.56 mg of 1080 to kill it (not 3 mg of 1080 per bait). If each dried kangaroo meat (DKM) baits contained this amount of 1080, one bait would kill all foxes less than 6 kg. When applying McIlroy’s precautionary calculation to a mean body weight for immature quolls, such animals would need to ingest at least two baits to obtain a lethal dose.

“From the viewpoint of trying to safeguard tiger cats [spotted-tail quolls]; therefore, it is obviously necessary to keep 1080 concentration in baits as low as possible.” (McIlroy 1981b)

One variable that McIlroy particularly commented on was the effect of ambient temperature on the sensitivity of 1080 poison. He was concerned that his experimental trials to set the LD50 for many native marsupials were carried out at about 22°C (in controlled environment rooms). He noted that in relation toxicity studies on the spotted-tail quolls, trials were conducted at 13°C where the LD50 was calculated at 1.85 mg/kg BW.

“… different ambient temperatures cause two to five fold differences in the susceptibility of mice and guinea pigs to 1080. Both species are susceptible at both low and high ambient temperatures than they are at medium temperatures. If similar responses occur amongst other, larger homeotherms, this might explain the relatively low LD50 for the tiger cat [spotted-tail quoll] compared to those for the other native cats [quolls]. The possibility exists, therefore, that if these trials had been carried out at 22°C [instead of 13°C], the LD50 would have been slightly higher than 1.85 mg/kg BW.

Ambient temperatures obviously vary considerably between field poisoning situations, both geographically and diurnally, so a LD50 obtained at 22°C, or a dose that will kill 50% of a population experiencing this ambient temperature, must be regarded as only a general value. Greater population mortality may be expected at much lower or higher environmental temperatures.” (McIlroy 1981b)

In relation to the most susceptible non-target marsupial carnivore, the spotted-tail quoll, 1080 baiting programs targeting foxes and wild dogs are still reliant on McIlroy’s highly qualified toxicology studies and LD50 calculations.

In obtaining his LD50 levels for each species, McIlroy orally dosed between 3 and 5 individuals at dose intervals of 1.26 in 4 distinct dose groupings. For spotted-tailed quoll he used 12 animals. The LD50 was calculated at 1.85 mg/kgm with 95% confidence intervals of 1.28 to 2.68 mg/kgm BW.

Other animals begin to vomit

Clinical observations were made on the experimentally poisoned animals.

“Most commonly, affected animals suddenly became hyper-excited, with rapid breathing, bouts of trembling and sometimes periodic circling within their cages. Again, some animals may then recover while other begin to vomit, convulse, or both. With some animals, particularly the eastern native and tiger cats [quolls] and Tasmanian devils, the first symptom is the sudden onset of vomiting.

Convulsions were triggered by disturbance, such as the opening of a door, sudden movement by an observer, or convulsion by a neighbouring animal. In rough order, these symptoms include: restlessness; increased hyperexcitability or response to stimuli; bouts of trembling; rapid, shallow breathing; incontinence[involuntary passing of urine and/or faeces] or diarrhoea; excessive salivation; twitching of the facial muscles; nystagmus (involuntary eyeball movement exposing the whites of the eyes)or bulging eyes with large (dilated) pupils and rapid blinking plus, in domestic cats, discharge of mucus from the eyes); slight lack of coordination or balance; abrupt bouts of vocalisation; and finally, sudden burst of violent activity such as racing around the cage, or biting the cage mesh or other objects. All affected animals then fall to the ground in a tetanic seizure, with hind limbs or all four limbs and sometimes the tail extended rigidly from their arched bodies. At other times the front feet are clasped together, clenched or used to scratch frantically at the cage walls. This tonic phase is then followed by a clonic phase in which the animals lie and kick and ‘paddle’ with the front legs and sometimes squeal, crawl around or bite at objects. During this phase the tongue and penis may be extruded, the eyes rolled back so that only the whites show and the teeth are ground together. Breathing is rapid but laboured, with some animals partly choking on their saliva. Finally such animals begin to relax, breathing more slowly and shallowly and lying quietly with the hind legs still extended but apparently semiparalysed (paresis).

From then on individual animals either: (1) gradually recover; (2) die shortly afterwards; (3) after a short or long delay (e.g. 5 min or 3-4 h) experience another one or two series of convulsions and then die shortly afterwards or eventually recover; (4) remain lying quietly, scarcely breathing or moving, until death up to 6 days later.

It is noteworthy that in McIlroy’s observations on carnivorous marsupials exposed to sub-lethal doses of 1080, he noted that animals that did not die but ‘remained weak for 2 or more days’. From this we can infer that the sub-lethal consequences of 1080 poisoning may therefore affect an animal’s ability to evade predation by other animals and affect their ability to find safe refuge.

McIlroy also makes the following observations:

“The pouch young of tammar wallabies are significantly more susceptible to 1080 than adults (P>0.01. The pouch young of brush-tailed possums and northern native cats, Dasyurus hallicatus, similarly appear to be more sensitive than adults. More pouch young pouch young possums than adults died at each dose level, although only their mothers were dosed with 1080; presumably the young ingested lethal amounts of 1080 in the milk. The eight pouch young of one northern native cat also died within 24 h after their mother received a non-lethal dose (84% of a LD50 )but the five pouch young of a tiger cat, Dasyurus maculatus, survived in similar circumstances (74% of a LD50 ). [There are] similar reports of young rats killed by milk from their poisoned mothers.” (McIlroy 1981).

Fox entry into Tasmania

Fox entry into Tasmania has ALWAYS been a biosecurity/biodiversity risk for Tasmania, yet it is remains unclear whether foxes have established breeding populations in Tasmania.

Despite the unsubstantiated stories of intentional introductions of foxes the most likely source of single-fox introductions into Tasmania has been slack and inadequate quarantine measures. In the decades of inadequate quarantine measures at our ports, any foxes that have arrived and escaped into Tasmania, the questions remains which locations have the highest frequency of receiving fox-risk materials?  Might these be the places where foxes might just get lucky and breed?

Over fifty years of 1080 use in Tasmania to control native herbivores like Bennett’s wallaby, Tasmanian pademelon and brush-tail possum coupled with the high sensitivity of red foxes to secondary 1080 poisoning (i.e. through eating a poisoned carcass) is rarely acknowledged.

Where will they ‘get lucky’ in the landscape? Closest to the farms & feedlots that have historically received container-loads of stock feed grain; agri-businesses that transport or deal with used farm equipment; freight forwarding depots. The highly reliable sighting reports of foxes in remote areas (where 1080 poisons have not been used) like the western Central Plateau or our National Parks must be the basis for intensive investigation. Maybe the remote camera used by the DFT team can be now deployed for fox studies.

It ALWAYS comes down to validating the risk assessment.

References:

1. McIlroy, JC (1981) The Sensitivity of Australian Animals to 1080 Poison I. Intraspecific variation and Factors affecting Acute Toxicity. Australian Wildlife Research 8, 369-383.
2. McIlroy, JC (1981) The Sensitivity of Australian Animals to 1080 Poison II. Marsupial and Eutherian Carnivores. Australian Wildlife Research 8, 385-399.

David Obendorf

With DPIW poised to embark on a decade-long $56 million dollar fox eradication campaign using 1080 meat baits as the principle eradication tool, I believe there are several very good reasons why 1080 testing of non-target Tasmanian species exposed to these baits must now be repeated. For Tasmanian wildlife authorities to rely solely on this unrepeated toxicological data would be reckless.

---

^© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain