TO:
Mr Geoff Burton
Director, Access Taskforce
Environment Australia
PO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Mr Burton,
FAILURE
TO CONSIDER ANIMAL WELFARE ISSUES
Thank you for the
opportunity to express our concerns about Environment Australia's
Inquiry, Access To Biological Resources in Commonwealth Areas.
At the outset, I point out that the Terms of Reference fail
to take into consideration animal welfare issues. This is absolutely
essential to any genuine Terms of Reference.
CERTAINTY
FOR INDUSTRY
The terms of Reference
are also vague. But Robert Hill does say that he wants CERTAINTY
FOR INDUSTRY. The Regional Manager for the Western Region
of NSW NPWS, Neil Ward on a Field trip to Fowlers Gap Research
Station (Broken Hill) in 1996 stated that it was necessary to
kill kangaroos even in and all during drought.
Neil
Ward said that the commercial kangaroo industry HAD to kill
kangaroos all during the drought because the commercial kangaroo
killing industry could not survive without a steady supply
of meat and skins.
However, this certainty
for industry in times of drought is wrong;
Those kangaroos that
have survived the drought are the biggest and the best kangaroos
of what is left from the shooters bullets. If they, the kangaroos,
have survived the drought then they should be allowed to live
so that their gene pool essential to retaining the inherited
genetic strengths of the mob can be passed on. Instead the commercial
kangaroo industry kills them and so defies once again the natural
selection process. This is wrong and it is clearly unsustainable.
And while this Inquiry
is not about the commercial kangaroo industry per se, it points
out the problems in accessing certainty for industry and the
issues that you have ignored in past submissions to you addressing
animal welfare and genetic loss.
CONTROL
OVER AND OWNERSHIP OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Since kangaroos have
been defined as a ( biological ) resource by ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA
and since Robert Hill wants control over , ownership of and
certainty for industry, for Australia's Biological Resources,
we wish to point out the pitfalls in such control over Australia's
native fauna ; Therefore we object most strongly to this Inquiry
'ACCESS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES' until ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA
gives the welfare of OUR native animals their due rights and
they has failed to do that.
CRUELTY
BY INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN KILLING NATIVE ANIMALS
(eg TURTLES AND DUGONGS)
Robert Hill tells
us that he recognises the special knowledge held by indigenous
people in relation to our biodiversity.well, they certainly
do not always use this knowledge to kill native animals humanely
and in fact the opposite is often true..
Indigenous people should be held accountable under the same
laws of prevention of cruelty as the rest of the community is
held responsible.
The cruelty is manifested in the
way that indigenous people kill our native biological resources
such as sea turtles and then roast them alive or the way that
indigenous people kill dugongs. These issues must be addressed
before you talk about RIGHTS
or CONTROL OVER
or OWNERSHIP of our biological resources. There are many
other examples of cruelty.
RSPCA
AND LEGALLY UNENFORCEABLE CODES OF PRACTICE (AND CRUELTY) IN
THE KILLING OF OUR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (KANGAROOS)
Environment Australia has hidden
behind legally unenforceable or even properly policed Codes
of Practice. (i.e. Code of Practice for the 'HUMANE' Shooting
of Kangaroos). Now Environment Australia has commissioned
the RSPCA to investigate cruelty to kangaroos and Compliance
with the Code of Practice to report in June 2000.
Now if you were a
shooter, or a farmer wouldn't you be very aware that Big Brother
was watching you and wouldn't you get your house in order, if
even for a brief time? This RSPCA Report will tell us what we
already know; that the Commercial killing of kangaroos is brutally
cruel and cannot be controlled, There is no Inquiry that will
be able to convince us otherwise because of the inherent nature
of the killing and the sheer distances involved.
How can you control 'pitting' in Western
NSW by farmers who want skin only shooting? (Pitting is the
illegal killing and later burying of kangaroos and throwing
them into pits in order to convince the wildlife authorities
of the need to kill kangaroos for their skin only. There is
profit to be made and illegal skins are easy to move))
How does it control
the Greg Eichner's of Western NSW ( IFAW film footage)?
How does it control the orphaned joeys,
which are a constant casualty of your killing kangaroos a
s a biological resource?
INQUIRY
TO ACCESS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environment Australia
has made it crystal clear that the utilisation of our native
animals FOR WHATEVER REASON is a right (commercial emphasis)
and in fact, it is the policy of Environment Australia as follows:
"AUSTRALIAN
NATIVE WILDLIFE IS A RENEWABLE RESOURCE. IF MANAGED IN AN
ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE MANNER, WILDLIFE CAN PROVIDE A PERPETUAL
SOURCE OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS."
This policy was introduced
by stealth. No one knows the year as it was a gradual chronology
of betrayal to our native animals by scientists and bureaucrats
who had failed to manage the land and allowed the crisis we
now face. It began in earnest in the 1980's and can be demonstrated
by the bogus 1988 CSIRO 'scientific' study of the perceptions
of land holders that kangaroos were as big a pest as blowflies.
SOUTH
AUSTRALIA - INSTITUTIONALISED WILDLIFE EXPLOITATION
".if managed
in an ecologically sustainable manner." the trouble is
that NO ONE knows what is sustainable and the two worst
States, South Australia and Queensland, have a kangaroo killing
regime that is a DIRECT THREAT to the future survival of the
Red kangaroo.
South Australia has
a policy of INSTITUTIONALISED WILDLIFE EXPLOITATION. In South
Australia they raise generations of kangaroo killers, teaching
children that it is OK to kill kangaroos and then to eat them
( they ignore the health risks).all for profit and implementation
of the Environment Australia's policy of wildlife as a renewable
resource to provide an economic benefit for all Australians.
A Report by macropod
expert Doug Reilly, Environmental Research Station, Upper Spencer
Gulf in September 1996 stated " Based
solely on economic considerations, the ultimate casualties of
deliberate legislative policies have been a disastrous decline
in wildlife habitats and wildlife diversity.
This same culture of legislative land exploitation has extended
to the bureaucracy responsible for our native fauna protection,
where similar destructive policy strategies still apply. Kangaroo
management policies in South Australia have followed an overall
trend from conservation to exploitation.
In
1996 the harvesting
of kangaroos principally from the pastoral zone was abandoned.
Aggressive marketing and competition in a now small but powerful
industry, wanting more and more product to feed its commercial
avarice, is placing incredible pressures on those charged with
maintaining sustainable biological levels for the conservation
of the wild populations. Implementation
of this plan heralds dire consequences for genetic health of
individual populations and does not auger well for the ultimate
SURVIVAL of the major macropod species harvested in South Australia
This is taking place
in Robert Hill's own state of South Australia. He wants control
over and ownership of our biological resources. And the Chairman
of this ACCESS to BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Inquiry is John Voumard
from South Australia.
QUEENSLAND
HAS IGNORED THE J.R. PETER HARDMAN REPORT
Protected areas are
set aside to be protected. There should be no hunting, no harvesting
or commercial activities of any kind in National Parks. Robert
Hill may argue that the collection of biological resources is
only on a small scale but the Management of National Parks means
that that they should be protected at all costs. None of the
industries that exploit wildlife has been shown to be ecologically
sustainable.
J.R. Peter Hardman,
the Principal Agriculture Economist for the Queensland Department
of Natural Resources was Commissioned to do a report which he
released in November 1996 "The Wild Harvesting and Marketing
of Kangaroos"
A Case Study of the
Profitability of Kangaroos Compared with Sheep/Beef.
This report
which has been suppressed by the Queensland Government concludes
that "Solving the problem of land degradation will require
other methods and approaches. In summary, it is most unlikely
to be done by replacing sheep/beef with kangaroo harvesting."
CHRONOLOGY
Of BETRAYAL
The
Federal Government is systematically and cruelly killing kangaroos
to an unsustainable level for export markets. It is the intent
of this Inquiry to Access Biological Resources to control and
have ownership of which gives us concern.
Environment Australia
uses as its 'official' document "Commercial Harvesting
of Kangaroos in Australia" by Tony Pople and Gordon Grigg
both known vocal supporters of the commercial killing industry
which says:
- "Harvesting
will invariably involve some injuries and protracted deaths.
To harvest a sustained yield from a population at steady
density, it first must be manipulated in some way to promote
the rate of increase.
(e.g. reduce it below its ecological carrying capacity
or supplement its resources)"
- "Rates
of harvest may be raised to levels at which they can cause
the extinction of the populations (Arguments will
be confounded when there are non-consumptive values attached
to the resource such as for Tourism)."
THREAT
TO RED KANGAROO POPULATIONS
Commercial kangaroo
shooters prefer the red kangaroo as it is the species that has
the highest profit return. Australian scientists are ignoring
the most basic premise in science, that of natural selection
in wild animal populations. They promote a regimen of taking
the biggest and best (Red) kangaroos for the skin trade. They
support the killing of the young one to two year old Red kangaroos
for the human meat trade . This is putting insupportable pressure
on Red kangaroo populations. Scientists manipulate populations
to harvest a sustained yield but first they must manipulate
the populations to promote the rate of increase... And the rate
of harvest may be raised to levels at which they can cause the
EXTINCTION of the population.
The objectives: ensuring
that collection of biological resources for research and development
purposes does not adversely affect the viability of conservation
status of any species or population.
- The
kangaroo industry IS already adversely affecting the kangaroo
populations and the kangaroo industry must be stopped before
we lose our Red kangaroos, especially in SOUTH AUSTRALIA and
QUEENSLAND.
- And
can Environment Australia be trusted to Access Biological
Resources? On the basis of the way they
operate the kangaroo industry and ignore the crisis facing
our kangaroo populations, then the answer must be NO.
SCIENTISTS
ARE A LITTLE NAÏVE IN THEIR APPROACH.'
High - tech solutions
are now in vogue for many biological problems. Whether it is
acceptable to the community as a whole is still being questioned.
Scientists are a little naïve in their approach to questions
of this kind. They tend to assume that everyone shares their
assumptions, and that everything scientists do is not only good,
but is regarded by everyone as such.
Writing for our
book, "The Kangaroo BETRAYED!",
Dr David Croft (UNSW), macropod EXPERT
with over 25 years field experience and research, speaks of
the RED KANGAROO:
"He
has lived through at least one drought and one flood, he has
probably travelled over 200 km across the outback. From the
moment he left his mother's pouch he practiced and perfected
his fighting skills and battled his way to the top over ten
years."
"WHAT
VALUE DO WE PLACE ON HIM? $1.50 a Kilo!"
His Chapter 'Rangeland
Kangaroos- A World-Class Wildlife Experience' says that
"Lost in this debate is an appreciation of large mobs of
kangaroos as one of the great wildlife experiences that the
Australian outback has to offer." The betrayal goes
deep with Gordon Grigg and Tony Pople (Queensland) saying for
ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA, "Arguments will be confounded
when there are non-consumptive values attached to the resource
such as for TOURISM"
Dr David Croft preaches
to a different tune. One that would see
"Big Red Under Big Skies" . He also
tells us about the consequences in selective bias in kangaroo
killing and the tuskless elephants.
ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA
has lost its way. They are the Department that is supposed to
be looking after our wildlife but they are the exploiters.
IMMUNOCONTRACEPTION
-
SHOULD IT BE USED TO CONTROL NATIVE ANIMALS?
Professor Des Cooper
Macquarie University NSW says,
'My own view is that
we should not do so, especially for native animals.
-
"My first objection is that the method may not work
for very long.and this applies
to both feral and native animals."
-
My second objection is that the genes for
non-response to a contraceptive vaccine
may also be genes for non-response to disease causing agents
or be very closely linked to
them. The species concerned may therefore be
subject to EPIDEMICS to which it was previously immune."
-
"the claim that the technique is necessarily
humane is highly questionable"
"The spread
of viruses and bacteria is reduced or prevented by having a
high proportion of resistant individuals. Even susceptible individuals
are protected by this "herd". To have this happen
to kangaroos and koalas would be a national disaster, most especially
in terms of our international image. "
Source: ("The Kangaroo BETRAYED!"
by Professor Des Cooper)
South Australian
legal practitioner Mr John Voumard is to conduct this Inquiry.
We have not been told the names of the other people who
hold the future of our native animals
in their collective 'relevant' expertise. And what is meant
by a representative of the scientific community with 'relevant'
expertise?? Relevant to what? How
to profit from our native animals?
It is like the Scientific
Committee that Advises Senator Robert Hill on killing kangaroos
and setting quotas. They do NOT have the relevant expertise
to advise him in this matter. They are the Foresters of Australia,
the Fisheries, the Botanic Gardens the Plant Industries and
Veterinary Association. an array of scientists who know little
or nothing about kangaroos or the threats to them nor the kangaroo
killing industry.
"Kangaroos
are expected to be the first species listed on the harvesting
schedule. The submission says: There are real conservation
benefits to the sustainable use of native fauna over the use
of non-native fauna such as cows and sheep."
(NSW Cabinet)
( Sydney Morning
Herald " Birds in Hand May Get to Stay in the Bush"
February 2000)
Anyone
who tells you the above, has not considered the destruction
and erosion caused by the nightly journeys of the kangaroo
shooters' vehicles as they criss-cross the fragile out back
terrain, disturbing and killing the ground dwelling small
native animals, as they chase down and hunt kangaroos.
And to selectively
kill the biggest and best kangaroos.
(for profit ) and then to gut them in the field to feed the
FERAL animals is nothing short of environmental vandalism.
The commercial
kangaroo killing industry is NOT an environmentally friendly
industry nor does it have conservation benefits as no one
removes sheep or cattle and even if they did, Peter Hardman
(Qld Agriculture) says kangaroo harvesting to replace cattle
and sheep is economically unviable and land degradation goes
on and the crisis in the bush gets worse.
And finally,
the kangaroo killing industry is NOT sustainable!. It is foolish
and risky to say that it is.
Robert Hill and ENVIRONMENT
AUSTRALIA have got it so wrong on kangaroos! What makes
them think they will get "ACCESS to BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES" right!. To think that Robert Hill wants
ACCESS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES and control and ownership
of them is a frightening scenario.
Submitted by:
Maryland Wilson
President Australian Wildlife Protection Council
EDITOR, "The Kangaroo BETRAYED!"
NSW Kangaroo Management Advisory Committee
National/ International Kangaroo Campaign Coordinator
