Australia’s culture of killing native animals
Category Archives: urban sprawl
Australia’s culture of killing native animals
AWPC – Melbourne Water correspondence on tree removal wildlife-impact Lee st Retardant Basin
AWPC writes that only two of its questions were answered satisfactorily. It asks Melbourne Water what happens to the wildlife after the clearing? “The AWPC, wildlife rescuers and shelters regularly experience the fallout of such projects. Consultants and wildlife handlers are contracted at a premium price, only to hand over displaced, orphaned and injured wildlife to either vets or local wildlife shelters who are then expected to deal with these sentinel beings at their own cost. Quite frankly this is unacceptable and needs to stop, which is why the AWPC ask you the following questions once again.” Inside, full correspondence to date.
Craig Thomson
President, Australian Wildlife Protection Council
502 Waterfall Gully Road, Rosebud 3939
craig.awpc@gmail.com
0474 651 292
Mark Lawrence
Melbourne Water Project Manager
990 La Trobe Street Docklands VIC 3008
PO Box 4342 Melbourne VIC 3001
rbupgrades@melbournewater.com.au
Dear Mr. Lawrence,
Re: your response to my email sent 23/1/2018 about the ‘Lee St Retarding Basin Upgrades’
Overall, it was a very disappointing response, especially as most of your answers are already available on your community information sheet. Only two questions were answered satisfactorily; were you confirmed that you have forwarded my query about the sale of Melbourne Water land to the relevant department and the dates of the pre-fauna survey. We have spent a great deal of time putting these questions to you because of the lack of information provided by Melbourne Water to concerned members of the community.
Is Melbourne Water concerned about genuine community consultation and being transparent to the community to whom they provide an essential service? The Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) will be putting in a Freedom of Information request for the documents you have not supplied, including the ecological/fauna reports, however we will also complain to the concerned ministers, local councilors and community members about Melbourne Water’s lack of openness and communication. We believe you are scaring the community to justify these works whilst refusing to be transparent about the true risks. This is highlighted in your reply, by the following text, coupled with the fact that you are asking us to then submit an FOI for proof of this.
“Failure of the embankment would have a significant impact on a number of properties in the area.”
As you have identified, we are particularly concerned about the impacts on wildlife with the removal of vegetation; of the fifteen questions we sent to you eight are about wildlife. We ask Melbourne Water what happens to the wildlife after the clearing? The AWPC, wildlife rescuers and shelters regularly experience the fallout of these projects. Consultants and wildlife handlers are contracted at a premium price, only to hand over displaced, orphaned and injured wildlife to either vets or local wildlife shelters who are then expected to deal with these sentinel beings at their own cost. Quite frankly this is unacceptable and needs to stop, which is why the AWPC ask you the following questions once again:
1. Which wildlife rescue groups, wildlife shelters and vets have been contacted to look after or treat any injured wildlife?
2. Do local wildlife shelters have the capacity to look after injured wildlife during this busy time of the year?
3. What arrangements have been made to financially compensate these groups?
4. What measures have been taken to install nest boxes or other artificial habitat for displaced wildlife? (Please note that installation of nest boxes needs to be carefully planned in advance so as to enable wildlife to be bonded to new nests before re-release).
5. Do the contracted ‘wildlife handlers’ have appropriate wildlife handling experience as well as knowledge of the legislation about the re-location of wildlife.
6. Do the ‘wildlife handlers’ possess the appropriate permits to have protected wildlife relocated within a safe distance from their habitat loss or will animals be euthanased?
If Melbourne Water maintain, “Protection of wildlife is of great importance to Melbourne Water and we have committed to implement the handler’s recommendations” does Melbourne Water also commit to answering our questions for the ongoing protection of wildlife who will be effected by this project?
We can only assume, from your response, that the only community engagement so far planned by Melbourne Water, is to provide wood from the felled trees to various groups to make furniture. Yet, the community groups who will be most effected like environmental groups, wildlife rescuers, wildlife carers and shelters have not been included in this process what so at all!
To indicate that you are only going to plant 30 canopy trees within Frankston, in a place yet to be identified, does not seem to be fair compensation for the loss to the local environment. How did Melbourne Water come to this conclusion? Are these trees to be planted by community volunteers or are there to be separate plantings by contractors? The AWPC has identified a number of suitable sites close by, owned by Melbourne Water for these plantings.
We look forward to your reply and answers to our questions and we at the AWPC are happy to consult with Melbourne Water and/or your ecologist consultants to work on a better plan, communication and management for the future of this project.
Yours sincerely,
Craig Thomson
President, Australian Wildlife Protection Council
LETTER TO PRESIDENT CRAIG THOMSON FROM MARK LAWRENCED, MELBOURNE WATER PROJECT MANAGER
Mr Craig Thomson
President
Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc.
craig.awpc@gmail.com
Dear Mr Thomson
Thank you for your email enquiry regarding safety upgrade works at the Lee Street Retarding
Basin in Frankston.
We understand that you are concerned with the planned tree removal at the site and the
impact this may have on wildlife and their habitat.
Under Melbourne Water’s Statement of Obligations (2015) issued by the Minister for Water, we
are required to assess all existing retarding basins against the Australian National Committee
of Large Dams (ANCOLD) Guidelines. An assessment of the Lee Street Retarding Basin against
these guidelines identified that the site does not comply and safety upgrade works are required
to continue to reduce flood risk for the local community.
To ensure Lee Street Retarding Basin continues to operate safely and comply with the ANCOLD
guidelines, trees and vegetation on the length of the embankment will need to be removed as
part of the works. We have worked hard to ensure that we only remove trees that will affect
the integrity of the retarding basin and have committed to planting trees at other locations in
the Frankston City Council area.
The ANCOLD guidelines are publically available and a copy can be purchased online from
ANCOLD at their website: www.ancold.org.au The guidelines do not specifically mention trees
on retarding basin embankments. They provide guidance on how to assess risk on dams and
dam-like structures.
In the past, it was common practice to have trees on retarding basin embankments. However,
as international understanding of dam engineering has improved it has become evident that
trees significantly weaken embankments and increase the risk of failure in a high rainfall
event. Failure of the embankment would have a significant impact on a number of properties in
the area.
In 2015, Melbourne Water received independent specialist advice that trees on retarding basin
embankments increase the chance that the embankment may fail in the event of a large rain
event. The chance is increased due to:
internal erosion and displacement of soil – tree roots create erosion pathways
through the embankment which are worsened when the tree dies and its
decaying roots leave voids through the embankment;
trees uprooting and taking part of the embankment with them; and
water speeding up around tree trunks and causing faster erosion.
As part of the works, the embankment must also be hardened to operate safely and this can’t
be done without the trees being removed.
We understand the importance of trees to the local community and have committed to
mitigating the impact of removing the embankment trees by:
planting 30 canopy trees elsewhere in the Frankston City Council area;
using the cut-down logs to provide a woodland habitat for wildlife at Lee Street
Retarding Basin; and
recycling the cut down logs to make furniture that will be donated to Frankston
City Council.
A reinstatement plan has been developed in adherence to Frankston City Council’s Local Law
22 permit requirements and we will implement it in the coming months. In addition to the
reinstatement plan, wood from the trees at the site will be utilised by a local community group
and the community will also have an opportunity to participate in a planting day in Frankston
in coming months.
As part of the planning for the project, Melbourne Water engaged specialists to complete a
flora and fauna assessment and arborist assessment as part of Council’s requirements under
Local Law 22.
In your email you asked us to provide you with the arborist report and water depth and flood
modelling records. We ask you to request these under the Freedom of Information Act 1982
(Vic) to make an FOI request, please visit our website and use the online FOI application:
www.melbournewater.com.au Our FOI Officer, Michael Keough, is available to assist with your
application if required. Michael can be contacted on 9679 6821 or at
foi@melbournewater.com.au
In addition to the flora and fauna assessment we have engaged a wildlife handler who will
manage and implement the wildlife management practices prior to and during the tree removal
activity. Protection of wildlife is of great importance to Melbourne Water and we have
committed to implement the handler’s recommendations including:
undertaking a pre-construction visual inspection and assessment at Lee Street retarding
basin. This was completed on 29 January 2018 and found no EPBC Act-listed threatened
ecological communities or FFG Act-listed threatened flora communities present within the
Lee St study site.
marking trees that have possible habitat to ensure that they are removed appropriately.
confirming the species as listed in the flora and fauna assessment
remaining onsite during the tree removal works to check and safely move fauna prior to
tree removal.
The wildlife handler we have engaged is a qualified ecologist and zoologist with 25 years’
experience.
The EPA guidelines referred to are in relation to hours of work. Work for this project will be
carried out in line with EPA guidelines between 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday and 7am and
1pm on Saturdays.
Your email included concern at the sale of Melbourne Water land in the Frankston area and the
potential loss of biodiversity. We have passed this on to our Property Team who will respond to
you direct.
Once again, thank you for your email.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Lawrence
Melbourne Water Project Manager
ORIGINAL LETTER FROM CRAIG THOMSON TO MELBOURNE WATER ABOUT REMOVING TREES FROM LEE ST RETARDANT BASIN
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?
Brutal “conservation cull” of ACT kangaroos – carnage wrapped in environmental language!
More than 2,600 Kangaroos to be violently slaughtered in 2017, based on what’s condemned by wildlife carers as fraudulent flawed Acts, Plans. and Strategies.
The closures will start from Wednesday, May 17, in Canberra and Googong Foreshores.
This carnage will occur at 12 sites, closed for what’s ironically, and contradictorily called a “conservation cull”.
The sites are Mulligans Flat Nature Reserve, Goorooyarroo Nature Reserve, Mount Majura Nature Reserve and adjacent territory land, Kama Nature Reserve, Mount Painter Nature Reserve and adjacent territory land, The Pinnacle Nature Reserve and adjacent unleased land, Mount Mugga Mugga Nature Reserve, Isaacs Ridge Nature Reserves, …Callum Brae Nature Reserve, East Jerrabomberra Grasslands, West Jerrabomberra Nature Reserve, and Googong Foreshores. These “Nature” reserves will be shut to the public while they are killing fields!
These violent killings are not culls, and are not for Conservation purposes. Our Kangaroos being driven to extinction, weakening the species genetically altering our Kangaroos committed by over killing and the infertility programs.
(image: Animals Australia)
So “nature” doesn’t include native kangaroos? What’s not “native” about the conservation of kangaroos? Eastern Grey Kangaroos (EGK) are now maligned as a threat to Nature, and on the level of feral, invasive species?
The closures will start from Wednesday, May 17, in Canberra and Googong Foreshores.
“The conservation cull… is needed to protect biodiversity and maintain populations at appropriate levels to minimise impacts on other flora and fauna in critical grassland and woodland sites,” Director of parks and conservation Daniel Iglesias says. He says that the “culling of overabundant kangaroos is currently the most humane method of population control available to the ACT Government as a responsible land manager…”.
So according to park manager, Iglesias, employed by the ACT government, EGK are not part of our nation’s biodiversity, and are NOT part of our flora and fauna – they only “impact” on it and destroy it?
Just what empirical evidence supports his assumption that the kangaroos are “over abundant”? In a report and map prepared by field ecologist Ray Mjadwesch in 2013, Professor Garlick said eastern grey kangaroos were already gone from 26.6 per cent of the territory because of urban land use, and a further 29.9 per cent of the animals were under pressure.
Literature written by ecologist Dan Ramp (University of NSW) describes the importance of kangaroos in protecting threatened and endangered species from decline:-
‘Native herbivores such as kangaroos and wombats, play a vital role in ecosystem functioning but are often victimized and treated with lack of concern because of socio-political factors and historical value judgements rather than heeding biological and ecological information.’
According to Lady Nora Preston, Western Creek, (Wildlife Carers Group Inc) the Animal Welfare and Management Strategy 2017-2022 should protect all animals, and recognise animals as being sentient beings. It’s contradictory with regards to:
1. the violent Nature Conservation Act 2014
2. the violent Eastern Grey Kangaroos Draft Controlled Native Species Management Plan:
3. the violent Code of Practice,
4. the Ethics Committee that allows violence and suffering
5. the Kangaroo Management Plan
6. the ACT Kangaroo Management Plan (ACT Government 2010) and subsidiary policy instruments
7. Draft ACT Pest Animal Management Strategy 2011-2021: https://wildlifecarersgroup.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/amendments-darting-currawongs-rspca-draft-act-pest-animal-management-strategy-2011-2021/
8. Draft ACT Native Grasslands Conservation Strategy – https://wildlifecarersgroup.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/wildlife-carers-group-submission-draft-act-native-grasslands-conservation-strategy-closes-12-may-2017/ that is consistent with
9. the ACT Nature Conservation Strategy 2013-23 (ACT Government 2013a) and
10. their accusation is that the 2005 Lowland Grassland Conservation Strategy is all based on (allegedly) fraudulent reports on the Eastern Grey Kangaroos, etc.
There’s a difference between the science of zoology, conservation, environmental science and being a park-ranger manager! Management of a park, or Nature reserve, clearly is not based on promoting natural systems, or supporting flora and fauna. Rather it is based on manipulating what governments dictate and then wrapping the policies in neat, environmental-language to make it sound like legitimate “conservation”. No doubt the real motive for this “conservation cull” of native kangaroos is not about protecting other species, or grasslands, but a more prosaic way of limiting vehicle accidents, and releasing more land for urban sprawl!
This so-called “conservation cull” is human-based, and it’s “junk science” to fit what’s already deemed a fact that there’s an “over-abundance” of kangaroos in the ACT – once called the Bush Capital!
Once land is “vacant”, and devoid, of the more obvious native animals – kangaroos- then it’s seemingly barren, only suitable for “development” – aka urban sprawl.
The area below is called Lawson, and is a ‘land development site‘. It covers the entire naval base. So much for the government’s worry about vulnerable species being in this area – which is the same reason they gave why the kangaroos had to be killed.
(image: Above: the place at Lawson, ACT., Australia, where 500 kangaroos were herded and killed in 2008. http://www.kangaroolives.com/condemned.htm)
(image: There were plans to build 1850 dwellings plus 199 single residential at Lawson, 2013. ACT government. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-04/buyers-snap-up-land-at-new-canberra-suburb-of-lawson/5133156. So how will the vulnerable species fare?)
Out of 41 Submissions that were received, 31 Submissions opposed this Eastern Grey Kangaroos Draft Controlled Native Species Management Plan, and only 10 Submissions supported this Plan. A good enough reason NOT to go ahead with this Plan and to abolish it. So why have these “submissions” matter at all if they have already decided that maligned policy of “culling”?
(image: Kangaroos run from an official in a vehicle on the base.The driver, incidentally, drives straight across the 'vulnerable' grasslands. Sunset, March 31, 2008 http://www.kangaroolives.com/condemned.htm )
(featured image: Animals Australia http://www.animalsaustralia.org/media/in_the_news.php?article=3345)
Growling Grass Frog growls for attention as Melbourne’s growth corridors threaten annihilation
By Sheila Newman, reprinted from Candobetter.net website.
This scientific study into the endangered Growling Grass Frog was released overnight and looks at how the genetic diversity of the frog is being negatively impacted by the rapid urbanisation of Melbourne’s fringe. They were once very abundant in Victoria (so abundant that they used to feed them to the snakes the Melbourne Zoo!) and now only a few populations exist around Melbourne.
The scientists have found a population of the frogs in the Cardinia Shire, which has an increased genetic diversity that they hope to protect.
Claire Keely, the lead scientist on the paper, is both a PhD student and part of the Live Exhibits team at the Melbourne Museum (where they have some of the pretty green frogs in question).
Scientific study finds the vulnerable Growling Grass Frog under increasing threat from rapid urbanisation in Melbourne. (Download paper as full pdf publication here: /files/Genetic stucture and diversity of the endangered growling grass frog in a rapidly urbanizing region.pdf)
A paper by scientists from Museum Victoria and The University of Melbourne has today been published in the Royal Society of London Open Science journal. It describes how the Growling Grass Frog’s genetic diversity is being negatively impacted by rapid habitat loss as Melbourne’s urban fringe continues to expand.
Urbanisation is a leading cause of species extinction worldwide and is considered a major threat to global biodiversity.
The Growling Grass Frog is listed as vulnerable to extinction in Australia, but isolated populations still persist in the greater Melbourne area. Many of these populations are located in the city’s proposed urban growth area, causing concern as the species is known to be sensitive to habitat fragmentation caused by urbanisation.
The study found that there is decreased genetic diversity in the remaining populations found in Wyndham, Melton and Hume-Whittlesea, making the frogs more prone to inbreeding and less able to cope with the threats posed by urbanisation. The scientists have also found that populations in the Cardinia Shire, one of the four regions studied, are genetically distinct.
“Genetic diversity is key to maintaining the population of Growling Grass Frogs in Victoria as it makes them more resilient to the threats posed by urbanisation. If they are to survive in greater Melbourne the population found in Cardinia will require separate conservation management,” said Claire Keely, PhD student, Museum Victoria and The University of Melbourne, who led the study.
This study demonstrates the importance of genetic research on vulnerable species and can be used to inform conservation efforts to maintain populations.
The team are currently looking to gain further funding to extend the study into the Gippsland region in order to find out more about the frog species genetic diversity and how the Cardinia populations are related to those further east.
The Growling Grass Frog is one of the largest frog species in Australia. They are found in south eastern Australia and were once so abundant in Victoria that they were used for dissections in universities and to feed the snakes the Melbourne Zoo.
For interviews, images, video footage or to meet a Growling Grass Frog at the Melbourne Museum please get in contact.
Kangaroos must be “culled” for urban sprawl
A wildlife “consultant” has called for a radical new plan to cull kangaroos along Melbourne’s urban fringe before there is any more housing development. What’s “radical” about this solution to wildlife? Due to lack of vision, foresight and planning, it means killing them!
This new “plan” is about caving into the whims of property developers, and the plans of our State government to blow out our urban fringe for more growth-gluttony and housing.
Thanks to Melbourne’s obesity, urban sprawl keeps stretching out north, causing problems for residents and wildlife. There are more fences, road and houses, causing chaos and causing kangaroos to become trapped in factories, rooftops and school yards. Their habitat is being impinged upon and eaten away by infrastructure and clogged up, due to human population growth.
Instead of addressing the problem, and implementing any real plans for the city, the waist-line of Melbourne keeps expanding as 100,000 new people per year keep it engorged.
Wildlife Victoria has received about 6,500 emergency calls about kangaroos this year, double the number they received three years ago.
DELWP, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, is meant to administer the Wildlife Act, and enforce the protection of our native species, is also the State government department responsible for Planning! There are massive and blatant conflicts of interests here.
According to DELWP’s own website, they have control over our population growth! By 2051, there will be a projected 10 million people in Victoria, a “natural increase” of 1.7 million, and a whopping 2.8 million due to net migration.
Wildlife Victoria spokeswoman Amy Amato said “It’s definitely not an increase in the number of kangaroos in Melbourne….we’re just seeing the number of incidents in human conflict with kangaroos rising.” In fact, our government does not know how many kangaroos there are in Victoria.
(image: The True Cost of Sprawl)
Victoria’s Department of Environment has engaged independent wildlife management consultant Ian Temby to review the situation. His solution is to kill the kangaroos before development goes ahead, arguing kangaroos are being slowly culled by cars anyway! So, their deaths are inevitable, and shooters don’t kill will be finished off by cars. Then, the housing industry won’t be hampered by obstructed by native animals.
Author Ian Temby, in the past, recommended learning to live humanely with wildlife. Known to Wildlife Victoria members as a long time as wildlife advocate with over 30 years in the DSE.
He claimed that “action to resolve conflicts with wildlife does not have to be lethal. Exclusion, repellents, changing human practices and habitat modification are all examples of non-lethal actions”. And, “rather than killing wildlife, our real challenge is to develop and apply methods of problem resolution that are proactive, anticipating where problems may occur and taking action to prevent them from actually happening”.
Now, his solution is CULL, CULL, the easy and lazy way of removing the problem.
There are no interconnecting wildlife corridors in Victoria, so whatever “Planning” happens doesn’t include the fate of our native species.
For too long our capitalistic economy has gorged on “growth”, and worshipped the real estate industry, caving into it’s whims for resources. Already our infrastructure is choked and overloaded, and congestion is impeding productivity. We are falling into an abyss of infrastructure deficit.
What values are we promoting and what benefits are there from our city’s explosive growth- except for property developers and real estate investors?
The high immigration that was beneficial in the 1950s, and 60s is now causing our cities to be over-crowded and overpopulated. Our governments are addicted to growth, and our economy is on thin ice if it depends on rising house prices and population growth. It’s admission of being bereft of ideas, innovation, and enlightenment. It’s lazy economics, to just turn up the immigration tap to boost our economy, and expect the public to finance the retro-fitting of our city, endure a crumbling housing market, and all the deprivations of perpetual growth imposed on us!
The lack of innovation and diversity in our economy means that there’s an over-reliance on housing and population growth. It’s a lethal and self-destructive Ponzi scheme, and will not only have a deadly impact on our wildlife, biodiversity and environment, but eventually cause impoverishment, deprivation, eroded living standards, congestion, and spiralling costs of living for human inhabitants.
Koalas could soon be wiped out in areas of Queensland and NSW – are you going to do something?
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP
Minister for the Environment and Energy
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Minister Frydenberg,
I am writing to you on behalf of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council.
WWF works to conserve Australia’s plants and animals, by ending land clearing, addressing climate change, and preserving and protecting our fresh water, marine and land environments. WWF has over 80,000 supporters, and active projects in Australia and the Oceania region. We are very concerned by the much-loved and recognised koalas, as their numbers are in steep decline.
Koalas are under threat of being wiped out in parts of Queensland and New South Wales, conservation group WWF Australia has warned. (Koalas could soon be wiped out in areas of NSW and Queensland)
Dr Martin Taylor, (protected areas and conservation science manager at WWF Australia) said once the habitat had been redeveloped, that then brought in new threats to the koala, such as more cars, more dogs, “more accidents waiting to happen for koalas.”
Nowhere to go- Save Koalas
Numbers are down 53 per cent on average in Queensland, 26 per cent in NSW and in a pocket known as the Koala Coast, numbers have declined by 80 per cent over the past two decades.
Redeveloped koala habitat is now a euphemism for its vandalisation – environmental destruction of their food sources and life-support. Just how can this legal “redevelopment” be allowed, destroying the fabric our our environment and killing off our iconic native animals?
Tourism is worth a lot of income to Australia, and nobody wants to come to see generic urban sprawl, more and more roads and developments!
The group has warned of “localised extinctions” if more was not done to stop development encroaching on koala habitats. Australia as a leading world economy should be setting environmental and conservation standards, not be worse than a corrupt, out-of-control third world nation wrecking their natural environments and forcing native animals extinctions!
We would like to know exactly what is being done to protect koalas from dying slowly and horribly because of the greed of property developers, and the growth of human numbers in Queensland and NSW?
(Supplied: with permission of WWF Australia/Sue Gedda)
“Government has to bite the bullet and put in strong protections, not just for koalas but for all our wildlife,” Dr Taylor said. Extinction is not an event, but a process. Loss of habitat is a silver bullet for threatening their survival, and their demise.
“Government has to bite the bullet and put in strong protections, not just for koalas but for all our wildlife,” Dr Taylor said.
“The problem is there are so many get out of jail free cards for the all the industries that want to destroy habitats.”
So many permits for “development”, housing growth, etc, aka habitat destruction and violation of the rights of indigenous animals to exist.
Australia already has an abysmal reputation globally as a leading mammal exterminator, due to the ignorance and damage done by Colonialism and our early settlers. They were once paid to “clear the bush”. Haven’t we learned anything from the mistakes of the past – or are we still in a time-warp of the Colonial mentality?
We wait for your response as this is urgent, and we don’t want to be the generation responsible for the extinction and demise of our wonderful and endearing koalas in the wild in NSW and Queensland. Extensive and interconnecting wildlife corridors are urgently needed, before more lethal “developments”, and much better funded responses to emergencies, and support for wildlife carers. Responding in hindsight is just assuming the worst is inevitable!
Thank you and sincerely
AWPC secretary
The culture or vilification of kangaroos, as “pests” and their killing has become engrained into our history as a macabre type of environmental “management”. It’s rationalized as a human responsibility to control their numbers, as we have changed the environment so much, due to infrastructure and agriculture, to such as way as to encourage their overpopulation and breeding! They thus are condemned for over-populating and causing mayhem, including environmental damage and threats to other species!
The great Canberra “cull” of kangaroos is being considered again, in our so-called “Bush Capital”. It’s an oxymoron, and it’s using kangaroos as a scapegoat for mismanagement and human-caused environmental destruction.
In July 2015 Canberra activist Chris Klootwijk, 70, was arrested for blowing a whistle during the ACT Government sanctioned kangaroo cull which hindered the annual shooting operation. Klootwijk is accused of hindering the cull workers by making loud noises, which included blowing a whistle.
It is alleged that his actions were designed to scare off kangaroos, making it difficult for them to be shot, and halted the cull for about 45 minutes.
Chris faces fines of up to $30,000 and up to two years in jail if found guilty because the ACT government is positioning the blowing of a whistle as a crime. Whistles are not weapons, like firearms!
Borobi the blue koala has been announced as the official mascot for the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games.
Koala numbers have plummeted by more than two thirds in less than 20 years in south-east Queensland.
One of Australia’s leading koala experts has labelled this week’s unveiling of the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games mascot an embarrassment. The sad irony is that koala numbers have plummeted. They like the symbolism of our native animals, but not the actual animals!
Tweed Heads ecologist Steve Phillips said the use of a koala as the Gold Coast’s mascot was frustrating. “What we’ve seen is that progressive development, and the end result is that decline [of koalas] is proceeding at pace,” he said. High human population growth on the Coast has seen koala numbers plummet, due to urban sprawl. Some critics hit out at what they believed was state government hypocrisy in using a “vulnerable” species as the Games’ emblem but conservationists said it could actually work in favour of helping the threatened animals.
Federal threatened species commissioner Gregory Andrews denied the outlook for koalas was as dire as conservationists believed.
“I would disagree that the future is so bleak. The future is much rosier than it has been for a long time,” he said. Human population on the Gold Coast.
Over the past five years, the population of the Greater Port Macquarie region has been growing at an average rate of 1.62% per annum – driven largely by Australia’s massive immigration rates.
By the mid-nineteenth century as the European settlements grew significantly, a lucrative trade in Koala skins sprung up. Koala hunters shot, poisoned or snared these animals off their tree perches and bludgeoned them to death and sold their skins for export. The main export markets were the US, Canada and Europe where the Koala’s soft waterproof fur was used to make hats, gloves and fur linings for coats. (http://panique.com.au/trishansoz/animals/koala.html)
Due to huge public outcry, Koala hunting was banned throughout Australia by 1927. The importation of Koala skins into the US was also banned in 1927 by President Herbert Hoover while he was Secretary of Commerce.
Today’s threats to koalas are more pedestrian, of deliberate land clearing for urban sprawl. They are seen as an inevitable victim of our housing-based economy.
Our “environment” department in Victoria, DELWP, plans to “cull” 25,000 kangaroos on public land this year, under permits issued by the Victorian Government. They plans to kill 8560 red kangaroos and 5170 western grey kangaroos by Parks Victoria in the Murray Sunset National Park, 3000 eastern grey kangaroos by the Commonwealth Department of Defence at Puckapunyal, and 200 eastern grey kangaroos by Gippsland Water at Dustson Downs. DELWP said kangaroo populations were managed to “prevent crashing — or dying in large numbers from starvation during droughts — to prevent damage to vulnerable native vegetation and habitat from overgrazing, to allow heavily grazed areas to regenerate or to protect water catchments”. Rather than magnanimously prevent kangaroos from over-populating and “starving”, its really a thinly mask commercial kill, to keep up the supply of pet food, being trialed in Victoria! (Weekly Times, April 15th, 2016)
The Colonial culture of ignorance, human domination, land clearing, and killing is deeply embedded in Australia’s culture.