Author Archives: AWPC

Mornington Peninsula Council – urged to protect ducks from busy roads

One comment

It has come to our attention that there is extensive harm and death caused to ducks and ducklings that reside in the Mt Eliza area.

As well as other animals and especially birds.

Yet again few days ago, we laid to rest a father duck who was either hit by a car/cyclist/ and left to die on my footpath.

His body was still warm as his feathers gently peeled off his body as I held him safe in my arms.

We have given him a respectful burial as he deserves.  The father duck was not dissimilar to this duck pictured.

dead-duck

We need Ducks Crossing signs erected in a number of locations.

On my road, and property for example, we have at least 4 families of ducks and 8 ducklings each, roaming, that are constantly crossing the road, resting on the footpaths etc.

The cars are known to ‘fly’ around the bend on the highest point of Fulton road, yet the council km signage has not deterred motorists and cyclists from slowing down.

As a result of the lack of animal crossing signs, there are constant deceased animals/ducks/birds eg magpies.

Lorikeets that are being killed and left on the roads, only to be run over and over and over by the rushing motorists.  On a daily basis in Mt Eliza I pull over and pick up the dead animals/birds and give them a humane burial.

It is horrible that many drivers and local residents are blinded by the vision of dead animals being driven over.

And especially as these animals and birds are otherwise often kept as pets, or promoted as Australia’s special wildlife.  They are not treated as special when they are killed on the roads and left to die.

I request that signage be erected on known areas where ducks/animals/birds congregate asap to stop this unnecessary act of cruelty and neglect.

I appreciate your urgent reply at your earliest convenience,

Kind regards,

Paris Yves Read

Mt Eliza

Melbourne

 

morningtonpencouncillogo

Share This:

My response to “LOOKING AFTER THE BUSH: ECOSYSTEMS NEED PREDATORS” By Hans Brunner

One comment

Dr. Jeff Yugovic, a highly respected botanist, insists that “Ecosystems need predators”, as he is seriously concerned that the browsing by ring-tail possums threatens to destroys all of the tree canopies on the Mornington Peninsula and declares it to be a looming disaster. He states in his draft “that there is a “possum plague” and tree health has seriously deteriorated”. He is also concerned that swamp rats are devastating orchid colonies which coincides with intensive fox and cat control, hence, his message, “Ecosystems need predators”. This statement was true before white man arrived on the peninsula. But now, after the original ecosystem has been severely fragmented into small and isolated and mostly weed infested reserves and where the native predators have been replaced by dog, foxes and cats, the true function of the original ecosystem has now been adversely altered.

Firstly about tree loss:

In a study: “Survey of Tree Die-back on the Mornington Peninsula, Vic.

(School of Forest Ecosystems Science, Heidelberg, 2006)” seven reserves were examined for the causes of tree die-back.

They were:

  • Lorikeet Reserve
  • Mt. Eliza Regional Reserve
  • Mt. Martha Foreshore
  • Mt. Martha Park
  • Woods Reserve
  • Warringine Park
  • Tyrone Reserve

Causes detected for tree die-back:

Phytophtora, a root disease

Armillaria, root rot and fungai

Bell Miners Associated Die-back

Other insect defoliaters (six species)

Mycospheralla, leaf disease

Bark and Wood Borers ( Longhorn Borers )

Mudulla Yellows

Salt, chloride toxicity

* Climate change with more hotter and longer heatwaves and longer periods of droughts.

*Droughts, (in high temperatures stomas close, prevent CO2 uptake causing the trees to starve and gradually die.)

* More frequent wild fires

* Weeds under trees makes leaves more palatable to possums.

* Suitability of soil types and altered water tables especially in built up areas.

Also see on internet “Catalyst-Tree death-ABC TV-Science”

Of the above seven reserves examined in only one, Mt Martha Park, was possum browsing mentioned and subsequent banding of trees recommended.

In all of the other reserves, tree die-back was only associated with a combination of all the above causes. (*my additions) In spite of this, Jeff still insists that beside possums browsing “ Other forms of tree fatalities are minor”

It is therefore important to consider all of these factors that contribute to tree die-back, and not just blame the ring-tail possums? If we want to prevent tree die-back we surely have to seriously consider all of the factors that will cause it. One other of these reasons is the smothering and killing of trees by the exotic Ivy and several other tree-climbers. I have observed this on many dead trees, especially in the Sweetwater Creek area.

Possums have evolved with trees and are part of the natural ecosystem. If they kill all the trees, they will kill themselves. I therefore don’t believe that there are too many possums and that they will be the only threat to all of the trees on the peninsula. Proper surveys to study all the causes of tree death are needed to clear this up.

The concern that the Mornington Council is putting too much effort into fox and cat control, and that this is “head and shoulder above the rest of the State” must be for good reasons and should therefore not be regarded as a problem. Dogs, foxes and cats do kill a lot of all types of native wildlife!

Re: Swamp Rats:

The numbers of swamp rats naturally fluctuate but, due to predation by foxes and cats, large colonies of swamp rats have of late been lost in many isolated reserves (personal observation) so that they are definitely not overabundant. As to the loss of orchids due to swamp rats, orchids grow manly in open areas while swamp rats live in dense ground cover of gahnia where orchids are not doing well. All species of orchids have survived in the presence of swamp rats for thousands of years, so what has changed? Have contents of scats from swamp rats ever been examined for remains of orchid bulbs in order to proof that they are the actual culprit or the only one? Science please.

As to the effects of the original native predators, to which there is so much reference, here is what was described by some of the early settlers on the Mornington Peninsula in “The men who blazed the track”

“Kangaroos were formerly so plentiful that they resembled flocks of sheep. At Sandy Point they erected yards for a big kangaroo drive. Messrs Clark, White, Benton and others got 1500 in the first drive. ….. In the last drive they got 800 kangaroos. On the plain they were in thousands as also were the possums. One night they shot 95 possums in two hours. Bandicoots and goannas were also very numerous.”

And yet, there was a full compliment of native predators.

There were lots of dingoes as the top predator as well as Tasmanian devils, two species of quolls and large goannas as meso-predators and several species of birds of prey while the eastern quoll was the most commonest animal observed. This was the original, natural balance of a predators and prey relationship in the ORIGINAL and UNDISTURBED environment which was described as teaming with wildlife.

But, so much for the effects that these native predators were supposed to have had in reducing the numbers of kangaroos and especially of the thousands of possums and swamp rats. In spite of these enormous numbers of herbivores, including the large numbers of possums and swamp rats, all of the vegetation, including trees and orchids thrived well.

In contrast, since dogs, foxes and cats were introduced and the wildlife habitat on the Mornington Peninsula now fragmented and reduced by 82%, at least nine species of mammals have already become extinct on the peninsula including the nationally endangered southern brown bandicoot while many other species are critically endangered and the rest remain only in relatively small numbers. The present combination of the impacts by man, by predation, by heatwaves during which thousands of possums die, and through habitat loss and further isolation of habitat, it continues to decimate our wildlife including possums and swamp rats.

To give more freedom to foxes and cats will only exacerbate this tragic loss. In my research in the diet of foxes, ring-tails occurred only in 11% of scats while 89% of the rest of their diet contained mostly remains of endangered native mammals and birds. This does surely not justify the use of more foxes for the possible reduction of ring-tails.

In the Frankston City News, they reported: “Pet cats kill an estimated 600.000 animals each year including sugar gliders and ring-tail possums. Cats also impact heavily on frogs and lizards, This alarming figure does not include wildlife killed by feral cats. A feral cat kills between 5-30 animals each night”. Adding the predation by foxes exacerbates this disaster and could at least double these losses. Why then is it so urgent in this situation that “Ecosystems need predators” and especially so on our depleted peninsula. I believe that our wildlife needs urgent protection from predators instead.

It is not only predation by foxes and cats that is a concern. Foxes also spread the seeds of blackberry and bone-seed as well as the disease of mange, while cats disperse the disease called Toxoplasmosis which causes death to many native mammals. Thankfully, Jeff has mentioned some of this as well.

We should also not forget that ring-tail and brush-tail possums are an important and staple source of food for the locally endangered powerful owl.

If there is such a concerned that possum browsing will destroy all of the tree canopies and that swamp rats destroy orchids, it would be useful to have a clear and detailed action plan as to what exactly should be done and especially what type of predators we seem to need and how and where they should be employed. This was not spelled out clearly. I hope it does not also include the removal of under-story vegetation in order to provide easier access to ring-tail possums by foxes and cats as this would exacerbate the loss of even more native mammals, insects, birds and reptiles. It could, of course, provide extra habitat for swamp rats.

Ringtail_Possum._Brisbane

(image: Common ringtail possum in a Brisbane park)

However, this is the way it should remain: In “The men who blazed the track” they stated that “The land was then very heavily timbered , the trees being so densely grown that possums could run from tree to tree. Captain Balmain’s paddocks were then very thickly wooded. At Sandy Point you could not see daylight through the dense foliage” also, “There were hundreds of trees to the acre” and, “They hunted in the thick scrub”. So, why should we now suddenly have to remove the under-story when these trees were so healthy IN SPITE OF LOTS OF POSSUMS!!!!

If there is such a concern about the loss of trees on the peninsula through possum browsing, Jeff should instead recommend to have all of the thousands of pine trees replaced on the peninsula with types of eucalyptus trees, that are not too palatable for ring-tail possums.

Hans Brunner.

M. App. Sc. Deakin

Hansxx 

Share This:

My response to the original draft by Dr. Jeff Yugovic, Jan, 2012: “LOOKING AFTER THE BUSH: ECOSYSTEMS NEED PREDATORS”.

Leave a comment

My response to the original draft by Dr. Jeff Yugovic, Jan, 2012: “LOOKING AFTER THE BUSH: ECOSYSTEMS NEED PREDATORS”.

Dr. Jeff Yugovic, a highly respected botanist, insists that “Ecosystems need predators”, as he is seriously concerned that the browsing by ring-tail possums threatens to destroys all of the tree canopies on the Mornington Peninsula and declares it to be a looming disaster. He states in his draft “that there is a “possum plague” and tree health has seriously deteriorating”. He is also concerned that swamp rats are devastating orchid colonies which coincides with intensive fox and cat control, hence, his message, “Ecosystems need predators”.

This statement was true before white man arrived on the Mornington Peninsula. But now, after the original ecosystem has been severely fragmented into small and isolated and mostly weed infested reserves and where the native predators have been replaced by dogs, foxes and cats, the true function of the original ecosystem has now been adversely altered.

800px-Possum_Ring-tailed444

(image: ring tail possum - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Possum_Ring-tailed444.jpg)

Firstly about tree loss:

In a study: “Survey of Tree Die-back on the Mornington Peninsula, Vic.

(School of Forest Ecosystems Science, Heidelberg, 2006)” seven reserves were examined for the causes of tree die-back.

They were:

Lorikeet Reserve, Mt. Eliza Regional Reserve, Mt. Martha Foreshore, Mt. Martha Park, Woods Reserve, Warringine Park and Tyrone Reserve.

Causes detected by them for tree die-back:

-Phytophtora, a root disease

-Armillaria, root rot and fungai

-Bell Miners Associated Die-back

-Other insect defoliaters (six species)

-Mycospheralla, leaf disease

-Bark and Wood Borers ( Longhorn Borers )

-Mudulla Yellows

-Salt, chloride toxicity

Other reasons for tree loss: (My addition)

* Climate change with more hotter and longer heatwaves and longer periods of droughts plus severe storms where many trees are blown over.

*More severe droughts, (in high temperatures stomas close, prevent CO2 uptake causing the trees to starve and gradually die.)

* More frequent wild fires

* Weeds under trees makes leaves more palatable to possums.

* Suitability of soil types and altered water tables especially in built up areas.

* Removal of trees for fire clearing, road widening and urban expansion.

* Also see on Internet “Catalyst-Tree death-ABC TV-Science”

Of the seven above reserves examined by the School of Forest Ecosystems Science, only in one, Mt Martha Park, was possum browsing mentioned and subsequent banding of trees recommended.

In all of the other reserves, tree die-back was only associated with a combination of all their identified causes. In spite of this, Jeff still insists that beside possums browsing “ Other forms of tree fatalities are only minor”

It is therefore important to consider all of these factors that contribute to tree die-back and tree loss, and not just blame the ring-tail possums? If we want to prevent tree die-back we surely have to seriously consider all of the factors that will cause it. One other of these reasons is the smothering and killing of trees by the exotic Ivy and several other tree-climbers. I have observed this on many dead trees, especially in the Sweetwater Creek area in Frankston.

Possums have evolved with trees and are part of the natural ecosystem. If they kill all the trees, they will kill themselves. I therefore don’t believe that there are too many possums and, especially, that they are a threat to the total loss of the tree canopy on the peninsula. Proper surveys to study the extent, and all of the causes of tree death and loss, are needed to clear this up.

His concern is that the Mornington Council is putting too much effort into fox and cat control, and that this is “head and shoulder above the rest of the state”. This must be for good reasons and should therefore not be regarded as a problem. Foxes and cats do kill a lot of all types of native wildlife!

Re: Swamp Rats:

swamp-rat

(image: https://museumvictoria.com.au/discoverycentre/discovery-centre-news/2007-archive/is-this-a-native-or-an-introduced-rat/)

The numbers of swamp rats naturally fluctuate but, due to predation by foxes and cats, large colonies of swamp rats have of late been lost in many isolated reserves (personal observation) so that they are definitely not overabundant. As to the loss of orchids due to swamp rats, orchids grow manly in open areas while swamp rats live in dense ground cover of gahnia where orchids are not doing well. All species of orchids have survived in the presence of swamp rats for thousands of years, so what has changed? Have contents of scats from swamp rats ever been examined for remains of orchid bulbs in order to proof that they are the actual culprit or that they could be eaten by introduced rats or rabbits? Science please.

As to the effects of the original native predators, to which there is so much reference in his lecture, here is what was described by some of the early settlers on the Mornington Peninsula in “The men who blazed the track”

History tells us that “Kangaroos were formerly so plentiful that they resembled flocks of sheep. At Sandy Point they erected yards for a big kangaroo drive. Messrs Clark, White, Benton and others got 1500 in the first drive. ….. In the last drive they got 800 kangaroos. On the plain they were in thousands as also were the possums. One night they shot 95 possums in two hours. bandicoots and goannas were also very numerous.”

And yet, there was a full compliment of native predators.

There were lots of dingoes as the top predator as well as two species of quolls and large goannas as meso-predators and several species of birds of prey while the eastern quoll was the most commonest animal observed. This was the original, natural balance of a predators/prey relationship in the ORIGINAL and UNDISTURBED environment which was described as teaming with wildlife.

But, so much for the effects that these native predators were supposed to have had in reducing the numbers of kangaroos and especially of the thousands of possums and swamp rats. In spite of these enormous numbers of herbivores, including the large numbers of possums and swamp rats, all of the vegetation, including trees and orchids thrived well. Remember, herbivores keep on fertilizing the bush and nothing is lost in the long run.

In contrast, since dogs, foxes and cats were introduced and the wildlife habitat on the Mornington Peninsula now fragmented and reduced by 82%, at least nine species of mammals have already become extinct on the peninsula and in the Frankston area including the nationally endangered southern brown bandicoot while another six species are critically endangered and the rest remain only in relatively low numbers. The present combination of the impacts by man, by predation, by heatwaves during which now thousands of possums die, and through habitat loss and further isolation of habitat, it continues to decimate our wildlife including possums and swamp rats. To give more freedom to foxes and cats will only exacerbate this tragic loss. I therefore strongly support the various governments who see fox and cat control important in order to protect the remaining and endangered wildlife.

In my research in the diet of foxes, ring-tails occurred only at an average 11% in scats while 89% of the rest of their diet on the Mornington Peninsula contained mostly remains of endangered native mammals and birds. This does surely not justify the use of more foxes for the possible reduction of ring-tails.

In the Frankston City News, they reported: “Pet cats kill an estimated 600.000 animals each year including sugar gliders and ring-tail possums. Cats also impact heavily on frogs and lizards, This alarming figure does not include wildlife killed by feral cats. A feral cat kills between 5-30 animals each night”. Adding the predation by foxes exacerbates this disaster and could at least double these losses. Why then is it so urgent in this situation that “Ecosystems need predators” and especially so on our wildlife depleted peninsula. I believe that our wildlife needs urgent protection from predators instead.

It is not only predation by foxes and cats that is a concern. Foxes also spread the seeds of blackberry and bone-seed as well as the disease of mange, while cats disperse the disease called Toxoplasmosis which causes death to many native mammals. Thankfully, Jeff has mentioned some of this as well.

We should also not forget that ring-tail and brush-tail possums are an important and staple source of food for the locally endangered powerful owl.

If there is such a concern that possum browsing by ring-tails will destroy all of the tree canopies and that swamp rats destroy orchids, it would be useful to have a clear and detailed action plan as to what exactly should be done if it were true, and especially what type of predators we seem to need and how and where they should be employed. This was not spelled out clearly then.. I hope it does not also include the removal of under-story vegetation in order to provide easier access to ring-tail possums by foxes and cats as this would exacerbate the loss of even more native mammals, insects, birds and reptiles. It could, of course, provide extra habitat for swamp rats.

It is worth to consider that in “The men who blazed the track” they stated that “The land was then very heavily timbered , the trees being so densely grown that possums could run from tree to tree. Captain Balmain’s paddocks were then very thickly wooded. At Sandy Point you could not see daylight through the dense foliage” also, “There were hundreds of trees to the acre” and, “They hunted in the thick scrub”. So, why should we now suddenly have to remove the under-story when these trees were so healthy IN SPITE OF LOTS OF POSSUMS. To suddenly declare war on ring tails and brush tail possums is definitely not justified!.

In Germany and Switzerland they re-introduced the Wolf after one hundred years of absence. Now the numbers of native deer and other wildlife has been seriously reduced and farmers are loosing sheep and other life stock while people are afraid of encountering them. Do we need this here? To re-introduce some of the original predators into our remaining few forests and reserves would surely just be a further risk to the rest of our wildlife and life-stock. And why were these predators lost in the first place…..? What type of predators would have to do the job now?

If there is such a concern about the loss of trees on the peninsula through possum browsing, Jeff should instead recommend to have most of the thousands of pine trees replaced on the peninsula with types of eucalyptus trees, that are not too palatable for ring-tail possums.

Finally, Jeff’s problem should be addressed to the State Government for a response rather than seeking support from local environmental groups who have no real say in the matter. Reducing the number of ring tail possums on the peninsula and the way it should be done, if thought to be necessary, can only be resolved at the State Government level.

Is “Ecosystems need predators” the answer here ?

Hans Brunner.

Hansxx

Share This:

NDPRP opinion piece – What The Courier Mail refused to publish

One comment

By Ernest Healy

“Drought, Dingoes and Environmental Reality – Time for a Rethink”

Severe drought has again highlighted the hardship of Queensland pastoralists, particularly those in arid areas. Familiar topics have again come to the fore: the doubtful wisdom of farming marginal lands, kangaroos taking scarce pasture, ‘wild dog’ predation on stock and rampaging pigs breaking down the dingo fence. Everything, it seems conspires against the struggling farmer.

The imagery used seems understandable – ‘killing machines’ taking the life out of the west, wave upon wave with almost military precision, billions lost to the economy and sheep farmers driven out of the industry. Political demands abound for governments to do more to combat the ‘wild-dog’ scourge. Instinctively, politicians make the right noises.

HowlingDingoes
(image: Jennifer Parkhurst)

While the silhouette of drought and rural desperation is etched into the Australian consciousness, the time has, nevertheless, come for a reassessment of this man-against-nature view of drought and our collective responses to it. Attitudes towards the dingo are a good starting point for reflection.

Why is such a reassessment necessary? Because, there is a now a deepening and unresolved contradiction between a growing body of independent environmental research, which highlights the importance of healthy dingo populations for environmental balance and biodiversity conservation and long-established anti-dingo or ‘wild-dog’ sentiment , which deems the dingo a pest animal to be eradicated or, at least, perpetually controlled through lethal means across the landscape.

The legal status of the dingo across much of Australia still largely reflects this historically entrenched pest-animal perspective. However legislators respond in future, the days are over when dingo destruction can be confidently promoted as consistent with good environmental stewardship. Farmers and their peak representative organisations need to undergo this realisation.

The contest between environmental research, which by and large finds that dingoes should be protected in the service of good environmental management, and established ant-dingo attitudes, remains complex. This is because dingoes can hybridise with their domestic counterpart, the domestic dog (Even a European wolf can breed with a poodle). As when putting a drop of coloured dye in a bucket of water, all of the water, eventually, will be coloured to some minor degree, domestic dog genes will ultimately spread throughout the wild dingo population.

Pastoral industry advocates, fearful of the idea that dingoes should be managed as something more than pest animals, let alone protected as an environmental asset, have latched hold of hybridisation to argue that what currently exists in the wild are not dingoes, but hybrids, which ought not be considered indigenous or wildlife, and are therefore ineligible for protection. The term ‘wild dog’ thereby becomes more than a description, but a politically loaded term designed to legitimise the continued destruction of what is still, essentially, a native animal.

Disingenuously, it is at times further argued that, in controlling hybrids through ‘wild-dog’ control (poisoning and trapping on a landscape scale), protection is afforded remnant populations of ‘pure’ dingoes.

What then should we draw from the science which argues for a more benevolent attitude towards dingoes, particularly given the grievances of battling farmers struck by drought? A key consideration is the ecological function of wild dingo populations, even if they have undergone some degree of hybridisation.

If the role played by hybridised wild populations is essentially the same as the pre European dingo, or is shown to provide a net environmental benefit for the preservation of other native species, then considerations of genetic purity become an unnecessary distraction.

This line of thinking is lent support by the fact that much of the in-the-field research into the role of the dingo in maintaining ecological balance, as a top order predator, has been conducted with populations that were probably hybridised to some degree.

Evidence suggests that hybridised dingo populations are nothing like a first generation dingo-dog cross. Much of the hybridisation is many generations old. And, importantly, selection pressure is strong.

Prominent dingo researcher, Dr Laurie Corbett, once commented that, “although he believed dingoes in north eastern Victoria had undergone some hybridisation, this was not apparent. He speculated that this was because strong selection pressure in this region was effectively pushing the hybrids back into an ancestral conformation.
Farming now needs to be environmentally responsible in ways not imagined even one generation ago.”

Contact Secretary Ernest Healy: Ernest.healy@monash.edu
President Ian Gunn: Ian.gunn@monash.edu
Vice President: Jennifer Parkhurst: fidingo@bigpond.net.au

‘Great spirits have always
encountered violent opposition from
mediocre mind’
Albert Einstein

Share This:

New species discovered – the hog-nosed rat

Leave a comment

Thanks to the fieldwork of a research team from Australia, Indonesia and America the 250-gram mammal has been discovered in the remote, high-altitude jungle of Sulawesi, Indonesia.

1-thehognosedr
(image: Museum Victoria)

Museum Victoria mammalogist Kevin Rowe, one of team of discovers, said among the distinct features of the hog-nosed rat were its very small mouth, large white front teeth, big ears and noticeably long pubic hairs.

It has a nose like a cute little piglet’s, ears that only a mother could love and teeth that would make Dracula run in fear.  This odd-looking rodent captured researchers’ attention when they discovered it back in 2013.  The critter’s teeth are just as oversize as its ears!

The rat, which has features never before seen by science, was found in a mountainous region of Sulawesi Island by a team of international scientists, that included members from Museum Victoria.

“I am still amazed that we can walk into a forest and find a new species of mammal that is so obviously different from any species, or even genus, that has ever been documented by science,” Museum Victoria researcher Dr Kevin Rowe said.

The rat is carnivorous and, according to researchers, probably eats earthworms, beetle larvae and other invertebrates. The elusive rat was discovered at an elevation of 1,600 metres in a remote camp two days’ hike from the closest village. Because of its geographical challenges, little research has been conducted on the island since the early 20th century.

The long-snouted, big-eared rat is so unique it has been recognised, not only as a new species, but as a new genus. “I am still amazed that we can walk into a forest and find a new species of mammal that is so obviously different from any species, or even genus, that has ever been documented by science,” Museum Victoria researcher Dr Kevin Rowe said.

The team describes these discoveries as new species within new genera, because the animals could not be placed within any existing group.

Despite all the threats, and extinctions, to species, it’s encouraging that small pockets of new species can still be found! Such is the robust nature of our planet, and its resilience, that isolated new species can still be discovered.

While it’s not a new native Australian mammal, endemic to our country, it’s a credit to Museum Victoria that we have the expertise to be part of this team.

(featured image: Hyorhinomys stuempkei Image: Kevin Rowe)

Share This:

New trade deal- kangaroo meat for Peru?

Leave a comment

This email has been sent to various government departments and officials in Peru, and continue to be sent.

Dear

Our organisation, Australian Wildlife Protection Council,  is concerned about the  new trade talks last month (May), to advance the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement (PAFTA) with the sale of kangaroo and beef.

Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia President Ray Borda said  the negotiations with Peru represented an “exciting opportunity” for kangaroo meat exports.  Yes, “exciting opportunity” to exploit one of our best-known iconic animals, kangaroos!  Not for their uniqueness as a endemic species, for their endurance and perfect adaption to our landscape, and their endearing qualities as our national icon, but purely as MEAT!

Borda states: “It’s fantastic, not only are they big meat eaters in Peru but all throughout South America and they love the taste of kangaroo…”.  Yes they are big meat-eaters, but they typically do NOT eat their own iconic species, Llamas and Alpacas! There were considered sacred animals, only to be sacrificed by the Incas for ceremonial purposes, and thus their consumption was sustainable!  Why should Peruvians eat our sacred national symbols?  Our Indigenous peoples did eat them, yes, but only at a subsistence level, not the massive export, global industrial levels now being proposed!

We implore you and your colleagues to reconsider this agreement, and the exploitation of our native kangaroos, our much-loved symbols of Australia.

Federal Member for Parkes, Mark Coulton said a key message from the Association was the impact of unsustainably high populations of kangaroos in the Western Division. The estimate population of roos in NSW in 2016 was 17.5 million. The Western Plains population was estimated to be 12.7 million.

So  how could numbers of kangaroos be unsustainable?  Just how does he come up with these questionable estimates of kangaroo populations?  Just how does he come to the conclusion that these numbers are “unsustainable”, and on what ecological rationale?  Historical evidence reveals high number of kangaroos and other macropods as being endemic to Australia, and they are not a danger to us, or the environment.

Where does Mark Coulton get his dubious and highly inflated figures from, and just how can they keep up with Peru’s high meat-eating demand, assuming they would be willing to eat our native animals?

Many myths and excuses have been spread to attempt to justify the commercial killing of kangaroos. They are often termed a ‘pest’, yet research has shown that they rarely venture onto wheat fields and do not compete for grazing with sheep. Another myth is the population explosion. Kangaroos are a slow-breeding marsupial with low reproductive rates. A kangaroo can only raise one joey to independence per year. The most ridiculous myth is that kangaroos damage the very environment that they have evolved over millions of years to live in.

Graziers want kangaroo numbers controlled, for their own vested interests. They want to maximise their profits, and not give any of their resources to mere native animals!  Animal welfare advocates oppose the slaughter as cruel, and say farmers need more support to manage kangaroos without killing – such as appropriate fencing.

Grazing pressure by kangaroos is only a small fraction of that of livestock.  Kangaroos only require a fraction of the food and water that livestock do and therefore culling and harvesting have little impact on livestock productivity (Grigg 2002; Munn et al. 2008).

Orphaned young are meant to be euthanised under methods outlined in the National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies. For furless pouch joeys, it’s a blow to the base of the skull or stunning, then decapitation. Furred joeys should be killed with a blow to the head, while at-foot joeys – out of the pouch, but dependent on their mothers – should be shot.  How is this humane?

Studies have found kangaroos contribute much less to grazing pressure than assumed and rarely visit crops or compete with sheep except when food is scarce.  Kangaroos have transitioned from being a “pest” to now a commercial opportunity!

We again implore you and your departments to think again about the viability, the humane factors and the offense to many Australians of Peruvians eating our national symbol- Kangaroos.   Please do what’s in your power to end this deal, and cancel the visas of those who are pushing this agenda.

Thank you

 

 

 

References:

http://www.farmonline.com.au/story/4684630/kangaroo-meat-seat-to-bounce-into-peru-via-new-trade-deal/

https://www.savethekangaroo.com/factsheet

http://www.nswnationals.org.au/roo_meat_to_peru_under_peru_australia_free_trade_agreement

http://www.naroomanewsonline.com.au/story/4064204/why-kangaroo-meat-is-dividing-the-nation/?cs=1237

http://thinkkangaroos.uts.edu.au/issues/total-grazing-pressure.html

 

Share This:

1 … 23 24 25 26 27 … 37