Author Archives: AWPC

AWPC concerned for increasing attacks on wildlife with bows and arrows

Bows and Arrows being used illegally against our Wildlife

Wildlife carers say there are an increasing number of bow and arrow attacks on native animals, prompting calls for the weapons to be prohibited. Wildlife rescue organisation WIRES says it is seeing an increase in the number of native animals being shot with arrows, with devastating consequences.

A Hunter Valley animal welfare group has raised fears of copycat arrow attacks on kangaroos, in the wake of the death of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe. The eastern grey kangaroo was discovered by a man walking his dog along Coal Road at Muswellbrook about 11am.

It was reported in that a kangaroo was shot with an arrow on Toorbul’s main street in February two years ago. It has since come to light that a second animal was shot within 24 hours of the original attack.

August this year, a female kangaroo was left to die in pain after being shot through the chest with a sports arrow. Distressed Morisset Hospital staff called a rescuer from Hunter Wildlife Rescue, to help the wounded animal after patients spotted it near a mob. It was said to be the latest in a string of bow and arrow attacks that native animal carers have reported in recent times.

September last year, an injured kangaroo that survived more than nine days in the bush with a crossbow arrow lodged in its head is now recovering after surgery. Volunteers searched for the roo, fondly known as Spot, among locals in the Macedon Ranges since he was first spotted with the arrow protruding from his head on August 31, 2015. Resident Mr Smith said he called police on August 12 to report seeing two men dressed in camouflage and carrying crossbows on his Ashbourne property. When police attended the property, Mr Smith said the men had claimed to be “target shooting”. Kangaroos are not mere “targets” for aiming at and maiming!

Female kangaroo shot through leg

(image: female kangaroo shot through the leg in Grafton in January Photo: P Edwards WIRES)

These self-styled “hunters” and their weapons are all too prevalent, and are causing chaos and misery, threatening our protected wildlife. This is not a “sport” but a demonstration of personality weakness, illegal activities and sadism. How many more native animals, especially kangaroos, must suffer this brutality, and enormous pain? It’s clearly too easy to acquire bows and arrows, and they are lethal weapons that should NOT be freely available. There should be psychological counselling for these, no doubt, men who have some personality disorders!

It’s said that they are imported, online, from overseas? If they are actually sporting equipment, then they should be confined to club rooms, not be available for evil intent, to kill wildlife!

We the Committee and the members of Australian Wildlife Protection Council want to see more scrutiny with regards the illegal (legal?) acquisition and imports of these dangerous weapons, such as bows and arrows, and increased security precautions that threaten our precious wildlife from criminals. There needs to be tougher penalties for animal cruelty, as a deterrent, and our government needs to give more patriotic status to our national fauna, especially our kangaroos!

These imported weapons, bows and arrows, must be prohibited from entering Australia, except where they are authorised as legitimately belonging to a recognised Archery Club!

Thank you, and we wait for your response

 

Letter to:

Minister for Trade and Investment

The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

55 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3001

28 Oct, 2015

Official portrait Hon Andrew Robb MP (Lib Vic Goldstein)

Official portrait Hon Andrew Robb MP (Lib Vic Goldstein)

Share This:

AWPC writes to Melbourne Water re threat to de-tree Lee St Frankston retardant basin wildlife corridor

Letter from Craig Thomson, President AWPC
Dated 23 January 2017.

Subject: Lee st Retarding Basin Frankston

Addressed to: David.Fairbridge@frankston.vic.gov.au (Biodiversity Officer at Frankston Council), lisa.neville@parliament.vic.gov.au (Minister for Police and Water) rbupgrades@melbournewater.com.au (email address for Melbourne Water retardant basin upgrades).

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council understands and recognise the needs to protect our communities from potential danger. We are also aware that the removal of vegetation has an impact on wildlife species. In fact it is a guarantee that wildlife will be killed during works that clear vegetation. As such we expect that every possible measure is undertaken to see if in fact clearing is necessary and if so that appropriate actions are taken and that local wildlife shelters are not left too pick up the pieces of poor planning.

We have received concern from the local community members that the threat of flooding to the local community at the Lee St retarding basin has not deemed a risk in the past and believe the proposed clearance of vegetation is excessive and will have significant impact on fauna as well as other issues, particularly of erosion and dust as well. So the Australian Wildlife Protection Council would greatly appreciate if you could answer the following questions;

-What pre-fauna surveys have been carried out and when?

-What species have been identified on site?

-What are the actions have been put into place for fauna pre, during and post construction activities for fauna?

-Which wildlife rescue groups, wildlife shelters and vets have been contacted to look after or treat any injured wildlife?

-What arrangements have been made to financially compensate these groups?

-Do local wildlife shelters have the capacity to look after injured wildlife, as they could be attending to heat stress events or bushfire effected wildlife?

-What measures have been taken to install nest boxes or other artificial habitat for displaced wildlife?

-Do they have appropriate wildlife handling permits as well as permits to have protected wildlife euthanised if injured or unable to relocate wildlife in a safe distance from their habitat loss?

-What community groups have they contacted to work with as stated in their community information sheet?  [Ref: ] “We understand the importance of trees to the local community and are committed to working closely with council, residents and community groups to develop an appropriate plan for reinstatement of trees else where in the area” in the information document provided for this project https://www.melbournewater.com.au/sites/default/files/2018-01/Communitybulletin-LeeStreet.pdf

-Where are other trees being planted, what species are to be planted and how many?

-Are offsets being provided?

-Is there an arborist report of the trees health?

-Can records of water depth be provided for the Lee St retarding basin to show threat of flooding to neighbouring properties over the years of its existence?

-Can modelling or records be provided of local flooding for once in a 40+ year storm event?

-What are the EPA regulations you are keeping to with to for this project?

-Can you provide a copy of the ANCOLD guidelines?

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council also has the understanding that you are in the process of selling off land on McClelland Dve to Ambulance Victoria for an ambulance station and another permit application has been made by Log Cabin Caravan Park. In fact we believe that all land owned by Melbourne Water from Skye Rd to Frankston/Cranbourne Rd is being considered surplus land by Melbourne Water. So it appears there are several sites across the Frankston city council municipality owned by Melbourne Water that poses a potential loss of biodiversity.

So the final question we have to you is what is Melbourne Water’s commitment to biodiversity in Frankston?

 

Eve Kelly, Secretary of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council writes post script..

Planning for Wildlife and Associated Costs

Having a plan of how to deal with wildlife well before the clearing commences is paramount and note: not all ecological consultants are trained in wildlife spotting or wildlife handling and relocation and none will have facilities or permits to rehabilitate injured or orphaned wildlife.

For wildlife relocation to be successful, with possums in particular, it needs to be planned well in advance, for example, adult possums must trapped, taken into care and bonded to a nest box and then released nearby with their new nest box. Simply installing nest boxes is not effective and is essentially a waste of resources and time, most nest-boxes will be left empty or eventually inhabited by introduced species of birds or bees. Relocating possums without a nest into another possum’s territory is cruel as it will result in fighting and injured and/or displaced animals coming down to the ground and at risk of predation or vehicle collision.

In the planning for wildlife relocation, it is necessary to engage with local wildlife shelters, who are permitted to rehab possums and vets. If possums drop their pouch young these animals need to be hand-reared before they can be released back into the wild. Pouch young may take up to 7 months to rear. It costs between $200 -$1000 to rear one possum from the pouch to release. These costs are invariably paid by volunteer wildlife shelters. The time and effort, already stretched in these vital shelters, is also pushed to breaking point when habitat is cleared without proper planning and communication.

Government departments must not only plan appropriately for the humane treatment of wildlife but compensate and duly pay for the wildlife expenses that are generated from displacing wildlife.

Share This:

AWPC: Bush Heritage big assertions on kangaroos need evidence before any action

“Bush heritage makes some rather big assertions about the impact of kangaroos at their Scottdale reserve and the impacts this wildlife species is having on the biodiversity there. If Bush Heritage is serious about their claims then they need to be a little more transparent,” writes Craig Thomson, President of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council.

“Bush Heritage Australia has forfeited the inheritance of a 350-acre property near Bega and lost numerous donors as they face backlash from a planned kangaroo cull at Scottsdale​ Reserve, south of Canberra. Regular supporters of the non-profit organisation have pulled donations following reports of a cull, with one referring to the organisation as “hopeless frauds”. Bush Heritage aims to “conserve biodiversity” at properties either purchased or donated across Australia. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bush-heritage-australia-faces-backlash-after-kangaroo-culling-claims-20160708-gq1fpa.html

They can start by answering and providing information to the following questions

– When do they class a wildlife species as being over abundant?
– What is a sustainable kangaroo population at Scottdale Reserve?
– What is the roos’ population current range in and around their reserve?
– Are there any neighbouring or local land uses or management practices that would see kangaroos returning to Scottdale reserve more often and in greater number?
– How many kangaroos are on the reserve day in and out?
– Has there been any scientific data of kangaroo starvation cases at Scottdale reserve or regionally before?
– While it is hard to watch an animal starve to death, it is a common condition of the natural world, in particular with drought and over abundant populations. So why do Bush Heritage feel the need to interject in a natural process, which in itself could have far bigger ecological problems?
– What is the science and guidelines being implemented by Bush heritage?
– Who are the independent experts being engaged by Bush Heritage?
– What humane methods are being developed?
– What scientific evidence can Bush Heritage provide that kangaroos are having a detrimental effect on other species?
– Has all weed habitat changing plants like serrated tussock grass been removed from Scottdale reserve and regionally?
– Do Bush heritage conduct any fuel reduction burns at Scottdale reserve?
– Is Scottdale reserve free of pest animals such as rabbits?

We hear explanations of why there are too many and debate what control measures should be taken. What is very rarely discussed is what is a sustainable population size, the roos ecological benefits and social structure. In a race to demonise our national icon for commercial vested interest or in this case a so called natural balance. The critical point missed is the roo social structure. Large alpha males control breeding within the mobs. When shooting takes place which animals are shot first? Well you can very confidently say it would be the roos who control the social structures within the mobs.

So the question about controlling kangaroos should be whether or not a bias against kangaroos prevents us from understanding their biology, ecology and social structures? Has this led to poor management practices, where the preferential killing of large males has possibly caused early breeding of youngsters, increasing numbers in some cases? (See Sheila Newman, “Roo scientists admit industry stimulates roo population growth whilst calling roos pests”.)

Share This:

Baird government ‘declares open season’ on native animals Contacts – Please write and oppose this proposed law

A licence to kill native animals has been labelled “red tape” by the Baird government and will be abolished, prompting warnings the move will declare “open season” on kangaroos, emus, wombats and cockatoos. He may have been celebrated for ending the cruelty of greyhound racing, but there’s no such consideration for native animals – they are just “red tape” to be eliminated!
The Office of Environment and Heritage  issued permits for 34 species, or a total of 145,550 animals and birds to be killed in 2015-16. This included more than 100,000 eastern grey kangaroos, almost 9000 corellas, 6500 sulphur crested cockatoos, 5500 galahs, 655 emus, 175 swamp wallabies, 113 wombats and 83 magpies.  Apparently these iconic native animals aren’t part of our “environment” or even “heritage” now?
250px-littlecorella
galah
(corella and galahs under the firing line)

The Baird government prepares to introduce a controversial Biodiversity Conservation Act to NSW Parliament this month.  Another blatant oxymoron, when this carnage will be a direct assault on any Biodiversity or Conservation!

“Those who seek to kill native wildlife will be able to do so with no oversight and little consequence.

“The approach suggested by the Baird government beggars belief; not only do they remove protections for killing native animals, they will also stop keeping records of how many are killed.”

The Royal Zoological Society of NSW has warned that removing the s121 licence would lead to the neglect of 75 per cent of the protected fauna in NSW!  The zoological types added that doing so would “abandon global-standard wildlife management practices” in NSW.

emu

Scrapping the Native Vegetation Act and Threatened Species Conservation Act will not help nature in NSW.

It will be replaced by a so-called Orwellian-named Biodiversity Conservation Act that will apply many of the current tree destruction tools in the government’s armoury to the city and the country. The Native Vegetation Act, which has saved hundreds of thousands of hectares from the bulldozer and chainsaw, had scientifically based rules about what should be protected (red lights) or offset with integrity. But no more under this new legislation – you can buy your way out.  The aim is to simply further the short-term financial interests of big agribusiness and property developers at the expense of wildlife and communities. 

PETITION: Stop the Baird government declaring “open season” on our Native Animals.

Please contact the people below to vehemently oppose this proposed law. Your letter does not need to be long, just an outright opposal to this lunacy.

Things to consider. We are looking at mass killings across NSW. This will lead to locaslised extinction of some animals. For wildlife rehabilitators – what will be the point of what we do if the animals can easily be killed on release? Also, our rehabilitation licensing will most likely become null and void as our license sits under the same licence to “harm native animals”.

Mike Baird
NSW Premier Online contact form : https://www.nsw.gov.au/your-governm… Email Manly Electorate Office : manly@parliament.nsw.gov.au Phone Ministerial Office : (02) 8574 5000 Fax Ministerial Office : (02) 9339 5500 Phone Manly Electorate Office : (02) 9976 2773 Fax Manly Electorate Office : (02) 9976 2993

Luke Foley
NSW Labor Leader Email : leader.opposition@parliament.nsw.gov.au Phone Minsterial Office (02) 9230 2310 Postal Address: Mr Luke Foley, MP Parliament House Macquarie Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 Email Auburn Electorate Office : auburn@parliament.nsw.gov.au Phone Auburn Electorate Office : (02) 9644 6972

Greens NSW

Email : office@nsw.greens.org.au

Postal Address:

The Greens NSW
Suite D, Level 1
275 Broadway
Glebe NSW 2037

Phone : (02) 9045 6999

—————-

Australian Greens

Email : greensoffice@greens.org.au

Postal Address

Australian Greens National office
GPO Box 1108
Canberra ACT 2601

Phone : (02) 6140 3217
Freecall : 1 800 017 011
Fax : (02) 6247 6455

Share This:

Baird government to axe Native Vegetation Act

Koalas and other iconic wildlife are vanishing from our bushland as the trees they call home continue to be cleared for farmland. They’re plastered across our tourism brochures, yet government policies are putting them at risk.
The NSW Baird government is scrapping the Native Vegetation Act – one of the most important protections for koalas in our state.  While the focus remains on native vegetation, a real and important issue is the wildlife, and ecological systems, that inherently belong to these habitats.  It’s assumed they will just “move on” and re-home themselves conveniently elsewhere!   The “elsewhere” is getting harder and harder to find.

The Native Vegetation Act 2003 (the Act) frames the way landholders manage native vegetation in NSW by preventing broadscale clearing unless it improves or maintains environmental outcomes.

Data collated by the Productivity Commission for their review of native vegetation regulation found that a decline in overall clearance did take place from the early 1980s to the early 2000s in all Australian states and territories (Productivity Commission 2004)  However, of the 74,000 hectares of land cleared in New South Wales in 2005, 40 percent (ie 30,000ha) was cleared illegally (ie without prior approval; NSW AOG 2006).

In 2003, the NSW Government pledged $3.5m to establish a satellite monitoring system in the state (although some parties have claimed the receiving department did not end up using the money for this purpose; The Wilderness Society 2008).

A biodiversity report released last December contained 43 recommendations for significant change, including repealing the Native Vegetation Act and other legislation that had been plaguing farmer productivity for decades.  It also recommended streamlining of development assessment where land use change can occur, which places farming development on an even playing field with other types of development.  It’s commercial interests, of profit-increasing, over conservation and protection of biodiversity.  Instead of a triple bottom-line, the bottom line will be profits, developments and economic progress!

Key to the proposal is the removal of the requirement that land clearing only be allowed if it improves or maintains environmental outcome, and shifting approval for vegetation clearing to the planning system.  North East Forest Alliance (NEFA) spokesperson Dailan Pugh said most rural councils had yet to identify or map high-conservation value vegetation for protection and, where they had ,the National Party had intervened to stop it.

A host of environmental groups, including World Wildlife Fund  and the National Parks Association, condemned the review of the state’s biodiversity legislation for neutering the office of environment and say it will lead to wide-scale land clearing and loss of species.

The review panel report that recommended this backward legislation also recommended conserving habitat at a regional or even state scale. Farmers, it said, had been left to carry an unfair share of responsibility for preserving nature in the state. “Regional or State” level is a way of leaving it up to individuals, who will probably be loaded with conflicts of interests! It’s political abandonment, to make way for housing and urban growth.

Of course the National Party and the farmers will welcome this news, and gives them more license for land clearing and short-term profits.
Mr Evans, chief executive of NSW National Parks Association, said the rate of land-clearing from agriculture had fallen 68 per cent since the Native Vegetation Act was passed in 2003. So, the Act was working!

The Wilderness Society NSW Campaign Manager Belinda Fairbrother said: “Weakening wildlife protection laws will place our threatened species in peril at a time when bold action is required to reverse the ongoing decline in our state’s rich biological diversity… We are resolutely opposed to any weakening of our state’s wildlife protection and land clearing laws”. Backward Australia will be more cleared at a time of multiple environmental and climate change threats, and will be a the cost of long term sustainability, and ultimately more food security threats.

CSIRO_ScienceImage_620_A_paddock_containing_native_remnant_vegetation_to_promote_biodiversity
“The Native Vegetation Act is among the most important nature conservation laws in NSW because it protects so much of the state’s wildlife like koalas and gliders from indiscriminate destruction. “If new laws weaken protections for land and wildlife, Mike Baird will be remembered as the Premier who took us back to the dark days of broadscale land clearing” said Nature Conservation Council CEO Kate Smolski.

(image: paddock containing remnant native vegetation:CSIRO )

Labor leader Luke Foley said native animals, birds and native bushland would be the losers after the Government said it would implement all 43 recommendations of a review of the state’s biodiversity legislation, completed last year.

Sydney’s urban sprawl had wiped out market gardens on peripheral land since first settlement. The problem now is Sydney’s expansion has reached the last phase, where in 20 to 50 years the sprawl will eradicate unprotected farms. So, instead of containing the limits of population growth, more land clearing will “fix” the problem, and mow down the constraints of trees, grasslands and bush in the path of “progress”.

Australia continues to have a net loss of biodiversity and the United Nations reports that we are entering an extinction crisis. What does this government and some farmers have against a healthy environment?
Contradictorily, at the same time as the government is establishing a $100 million survival fund to stop a ‘race to extinction’! The commitment was made after Opposition Leader Luke Foley promised $150 million to create new national parks including a Great Koala National Park on the north coast — as a nod to the NSW Labor Party’s preference allies the Greens. It’s easy to make political promises, throw out spin, and money to environmental problems, but actually have tight laws and policies protecting native vegetation and wildlife is far to holistic and intrinsic for slippery politicians who pander to lobby groups.

Share This:

Ban Ceremonial Balloon Releases Due To The Negative Impact On Marine And Wildlife

All released balloons return to the earth as litter, mostly in fragments, polluting both our land and seas. They, along with their attached ribbons, pose a huge threat to marine and wildlife as they resemble edible items to the animals.

When an animal ingests these fragments they are usually killed from the balloon blocking the digestive tract, leaving them unable to take in any more nutrients resulting in the animal slowly starving to death. Animals can also become entangled in the balloon and/or its ribbon rendering them unable to move or eat and again slowly starving to death.

Sea turtles are especially vulnerable to ingestion as they naturally pray on jellies which balloon fragments can easily be mistaken for. Six of the world’s seven species of marine turtle occur in Australian waters three of which are considered to be critically endangered.

Birds too are extremely susceptible to entanglement as well as many other animals. Penguins and even seals have been documented as being injured or killed by becoming entangled in a balloons ribbon.

balloon-300x225

(image: 10000birds.com )

As balloon releases are becoming more and more prevalent in celebrations, memorials and at charity events it is vital now that laws be made to put an end to the deliberate littering of our environment. There are so many other ways to commemorate occasions than something as irresponsible as balloon releases. Even those marked ‘biodregadable’ can take months to years to fragment, during which time they are still rubbish, and still provide risk to wildlife.

Sign petition: Petitioning Minister for the Environment The Hon Greg Hunt MP to Ban Ceremonial Balloon Releases Due To The Negative Impact On Marine And Wildlife.

Share This:

1 10 11 12 13 14 37