agriculture and wildlife

The Andrews Labor government has just failed a crucial test of its integrity in relation to threatened species listings and biodiversity governance. Immediately prior to losing office in December 2010, the Brumby Labor government had finalized listing the dingo as a threatened native taxon under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.

The current Labor government’s virtual trashing of that listing, through the reinstatement of a ‘wild-dog’ bounty, which directly panders to the Victorian Upper House Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party members, who were voted in on a relative handful of first preference votes, now casts a shadow over the Victorian Government’s commitment to biodiversity conservation.

The broader significance of the dingo listing relates to the dingo’s pivotal ecological role as apex predator. Ecologists around the world are increasingly pointing to the importance of top predators for ecosystem stability at a time of environmental dislocation and accelerating species loss.

The bounty is nothing more than a publicly subsidized membership recruitment drive for recreational hunting organizations because membership of such organizations is a precondition for permission to kill 'wild-dogs'/dingoes and receipt of the bounty payment.

While Jaala Pulford, the Agriculture Minister, against strong advice from peak environmental organizations and environmental experts, has obstinately persisted in reintroducing the bounty, the Environment Minister, Lily D'Ambrosio has remained invisible. No environmental defence of the bounty has been forthcoming, nor could there be.
This reflects a disturbing, environmentally destructive imbalance of ministerial responsibilities established under the previous Coalition government, whereby the Minister for Agriculture has shared responsibilities for key sections of the Wildlife and Flora and Fauna Guarantee Acts.

Labor is now demonstrating its willingness to continue the environmental dirty work of the Coalition government with little acknowledgement of the environmentally progressive legacy of the Brumby government's dingo listing and the arrangements then put in place to ensure a balanced approach to dingo protection and farm stock protection.

By reinstating the bounty, Victorian Labor has displayed serious environmental incompetence and party leaders seem unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Victorians deserve better.

Attached are two media releases, one by the Humane Society International (HIS) and the other by the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program Inc. (NDPRP). The HSI emphasises that there is no sound pest animal control justification for the bounty and that it will be environmentally harmful. The bounty of $120 per scalp will make no significant contribution to protecting farm stock from wild-dog predation.

The NDPRP Inc. highlights how the Andrews Labor Government has been captured by extreme elements of the farming lobby and recreational shooters organizations in the misguided belief that the ALP can win over a greater share of the rural vote to compensate for the likely electoral gains of the Greens at the next Victorian election.

Victorians need to ask where such extreme anti-environmentalism by Victorian Labor is heading. There is now a concerted push by the gun lobby for increased access to public lands and the advocacy of ‘community involvement’ in ‘pest animal’ management is providing the rhetorical basis for greater access. Victorians can expect that their national parks will become a focus of this push. At the moment, it is illegal to carry a firearm into national parks. However, given its present reactionary policy trajectory, Labor will likely continue to dump environmental principle in favour of political expediency.

Val Morgan

........................................................

Victorian Labor destroys legacy with backflip on dingo bounty
26th October 2016

Humane Society International (HSI) is incensed by the announcement that the Victorian Labor Government has destroyed its dingo conservation legacy with “a bigger, better bounty” than the Coalition program they scrapped just a year ago. A far cry from the previous Labor Government’s landmark listing of the dingo as a threatened species in 2008, the move signals a new era where Labor is beholden to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party with the state’s wildlife considered nothing more than collateral.

An abundance of reasons this regressive and misguided bounty program is bound to fail at the expense of Victoria’s environmental health were outlined by HSI and echoed by experts last week. They include: leaving the Government exposed to fraud; an inability to determine genetic purity in the field; and ‘wild dog’-dingo hybrids playing the same ecological role as genetically pure dingoes, including suppressing feral cat and fox populations to the benefit of countless native species.

"The Victorian Government is using taxpayer money to incentivise the killing of a threatened species with the ecological fallout to impact dozens more, it’s inexcusable and the public should be outraged. An opportunity to reform management to the mutual benefit of farmers and the environment has been ignored for purely political purposes, and we’re left with short-sighted investment in outdated methods that have repeatedly been tried and failed," said HSI Senior Program Manager Evan Quartermain.

Minister for Agriculture Jaala Pulford’s justification that a bounty of $120 per ‘wild dog’ scalp will be introduced “In recognition of the role hunting can play in supporting the management of wild dogs” is in stark conflict with expert organisations such as the Invasive Species Council, who have determined that shooting is a highly ineffective control measure for canid species. Similarly, Minister Pulford’s claim that “One less dog roaming on people's farms is a good outcome” demonstrates an alarming lack of ecological understanding. The latest research suggests that such control programs in fact increase stock predation due to pack disturbance altering behaviours.

“Alternative stock protection methods such as guardian animals have proven to be effective and are ripe for Government investment. Yet against all evidence the Labor Government has turned their back on the iconic and threatened dingo, bowing to shooters groups and trashing their conservation legacy by mimicking Coalition policy. They should instead be focused on strengthening the dingo’s threatened listing, with the voice of Minister for the Environment Lily D’Ambrosio conspicuous in its absence,” Mr Quartermain concluded.

HSI is currently seeking legal advice on the legality of the Victorian ‘wild dog’ bounty announced today.

Media Contact:
Evan Quartermain, Senior Program Manager: 0404 306 993 or (02) 9973 1728

HSI concentrates on the preservation of endangered animals and ecosystems and works to ensure quality of life for all animals, both domestic and wild. HSI is the largest animal protection not-for-profit organisation in the world and has been established in Australia since 1994.

https://www.hsi.org.au/go/to/2866/26th-october-victorian-labor-destroys-legacy-with-backflip-on-di.html#.WBF_ofS8-So

.............................................................

Media Release

National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program (Inc. A0051763G )
Date: Monday November 7 , 2016

Does Victoria have an Environment Minister? –
Agriculture Minister continues to trash threatened species listing

The National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program Inc. (NDPRP) today expressed dismay that, as the Victorian Minister for Agriculture, Jaala Pulford, appears to have run amok with environmentally damaging ‘pest animal’ policy, the Victorian Environment Minister seems to have resigned herself to a junior minister role over crucial biodiversity decision making.

It is extraordinary that at the very same time as the Minister for Agriculture has announced a ’wild dog’ bounty, she has announced a review of the same policy in 12 month’s time by a newly established ‘Wild Dog Management Advisory Group’. The NDPRP urges the public to ask why a policy that has so little to recommend it was adopted in the first place.

Having been strongly advised by peak environmental organisations, environmental experts and progressive elements within the Victorian ALP itself that bounties are an ineffectual means of pest animal control, would undermine Victoria’s listing of the dingo as a threatened species and would be environmentally harmful, the Agriculture Minister has persisted in imposing the bounty, for which recreational hunters will receive $120 dollars for each dingo scalp. President of the NDPRP, Dr Ian Gunn, today stated:

“The announcement of a review of the bounty decision in one year’s time is clearly a concession that the Agriculture Minister has been forced into by more environmentally responsible elements within the Victorian Labor Party. However, if the justification for the bounty policy is so spurious, why was it reinstated at all? Why would the Victorian Labor government allow the Agriculture Minister to dictate poor policy that is known to have no environmental or pest management validity?”

Part of the answer is the presence of two Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party members in the Victorian Legislative Assembly, with whom political horse trading has become a priority – in this instance at the expense of good environmental management.

Dr Gunn added:

“Unfortunately, the Victorian Government is endorsing what amounts to a publically-funded membership recruitment drive for recreational hunting organisations, as membership of these organisations is an eligibility requirement collection of the bounty.”

“At present the Victorian Labor government is in a race to the bottom with the Liberal-Nationals Opposition to show that Labor can implement the toughest wild-dog policy, regardless of the environmental consequences.”

This is evident in the second stated purpose of the ‘Wild Dog Management Advisory Group’, which is to review the central pillar of the dingo threatened species listing – that lethal control for dingoes/wild dogs not be permitted beyond a 3 kilometer buffer at the interface of public and private land (on public land). This buffer was put in place by the Brumby Labor government to ensure equitable protection for both farm livestock and the threatened dingo population.

Dr Gunn stated:

“The NDPRP considers that, on being forced into a review of the flawed bounty policy before it has even begun, the Minister for Agriculture has countered by including a review of the key protective element at the heart of the dingo threatened species listing, which had been put in place by the Brumby government in 2010 – the 3 kilometer limitation on lethal control.

It appears that the Minister is effectively using her privilege of having shared responsibilities for wildlife and biodiversity conservation legislation to undermine measures previously put in place to protect Victorian biodiversity. ”

Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the Victorian Labor Government’s treatment of the ‘wild-dog’ bounty issue is the invisibility of the Victorian Environment Minister, Lily D’Ambrosio.

Dr Gunn stressed:

“Any review of the terms of the dingo threatened species listing should be led by the Victorian Environment Minister and state biodiversity officers, not the Department of Agriculture. It is extraordinary that a review of key aspects of the dingo threatened species listing, arrived at through extensive stakeholder consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment in 2009, should now be subject to review by the Department of Agriculture. The public might be forgiven for asking whether Victoria has an Environment Minister at this point in time. ”

The NDPRP calls upon the Premier, Daniel Andrews, to ensure that any review of the terms of the dingo threatened species listing be conducted by the Department for the Environment and led by the Minister for the Environment. The primary focus of any such review must be biodiversity conservation, not pest animal management. The Department of Agriculture has shown itself to be incapable of responsible, balanced decision making on this issue. The current approach is quite perverse and is damaging the Victorian Labor government’s environmental credibility.

Dr Ian Gunn BVSc. FACVSc. President NDPRP, 0427 387778 (mob.) [email protected]

On the early evening of Tuesday the 26 of May, the tranquil peace at Boneo was broken by the sounds of over 100 gun shots.

The farm responsible for these shots was carrying out a kangaroo cull. However in order to carry out the cull it looks to me as if they had to trespass on Melbourne Water land to get the kangaroos back on the farm.

As you can see in image 1.1 there is no available food on the farm as it has been cleared (cleared very recently in fact).

The tree line behind the cleared land is Melbourne Water land where the kangaroos are seeking refuge.

A couple of witnesses have claimed that they saw dogs released onto the adjoining Melbourne water land to chase the kangaroos back on the farm where they could be shot. Unfortunately 2 young joeys didn’t make it off the Melbourne Water land as they were killed by the dogs (see image 1.2 below of a joey carcass).

It is with much gratitude that I thank a concerned neighbour, who put out feed for the kangaroos who turned up for refuge on their property.

A team went out this morning to search for any injured and orphaned joeys. By the morning the kangaroos were back on the Melbourne Water land and very agitated. They saw us before we saw them and they fled from us to hide in the thick scrub. We were thus unable to get a good look at them, but it is of my belief there are most likely orphaned and injured Kangaroos in the mob.

We were also unable to find any of the shot kangaroos (we assume they were moved) and as such we have no idea of how many were shot. While we know that there were at least 2 joeys killed by dogs, there were another 4 adults hit and killed on the road in front of the farm (see images 1.3 and 1.4).

So after the search was undertaken today (but will continue over the week), actions were taken by the team to ensure that justice for these animals was secured. A complaint was registered, of an offence to wildlife with DELWHP. DELWHP have now started an investigation. Melbourne Water has been contacted and will be making an investigation. The police were called as well however they did not seem to concerned. The witnesses to last night’s atrocities have made formal statements to appropriate authorities and departments, and the RSPCA has been contacted as well.

While Kangaroos have been killed, exactly what took place last night is unclear as yet and any fault remains an allegation until the investigations are over and charges are either laid or not laid. However in these cases more often than not, if the accused is found guilty, a very small penalty is handed out. Such penalties present no deterrent to stop the offender from committing this crime again.

In this case a local supplier of everything from parsnips, iceberg lettuce, cabbage, silverbeet, celery and cos lettuce to a major supermarket chain has been accused of responsibility in this matter.

Story by
Craig Thomson
27/5/2014

Plans of the Victorian Government and Minister for Agriculture Peter Walsh to use the carcasses of Kangaroos shot under an Authority To Control Wildlife (ATCW) permit are very deceptive.

When an ATCW is issued it will state the number of animals allowed to be shot but there is no paperwork to support what the actual number shot was. It could have been more or less than the permit allowed. It is never checked. The number of Kangaroos claimed to be shot under an ATCW annually has been stated by the Victorian Government as 30,000 – 70,000.

See "Victoria to start two year trial to process-kangaroos for domestic pet-food."

These figures have obviously been plucked out of the air and inflated to justify the Governments proposed two year trial.

Prior to this trial it was generally accepted that the annual number of Kangaroos shot under permit was around 30,000 which coincidently was the number allowed during the time Victoria contributed to the commercial Kangaroo trade. Further more, there has never been a comprehensive count of Kangaroos in Victoria because the terrain makes it too difficult. On what statistics is this Government basing their figures and their assumption that Victoria is able to sustain the slaughter of up to 70,000 Kangaroos each year?

So what’s this really all about?

It’s about a Government which doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the pressure of farmers.
A farmer, like any other Australian citizen is doing a worthwhile job but they are not sacred, let’s be frank about this, they are no more valuable to this country than any other Australian. It’s their votes which are valuable and the Coalition Party panders to their every need regardless of, in this case, the welfare and sustainability of our wildlife.

Farmers may know a lot about sheep, cattle, and crops but many they know nothing about the population dynamics and the ecology of Kangaroos. To such farmers Kangaroos are not to be tolerated and their reasoning goes something like this ‘they take the grass out of the mouths of our stock, trample our crops and destroy our fences, they foul our pastures and water and breed like rabbits’.

One would think that all farmers could have learnt a thing or two about these beautiful animals since 1788 but NO, for an important number, ignorance and red-neck attitude have stood the test of time.

It’s also about greedy Councils who see an opportunity to add to their coffers and was first touted by the South Grampians Shire in 2008 and supported then by our present Premier Dennis Napthine. http://www.spec.com.au/blog/2008/06/05/roo-plantshire-wants-kangaroo-meat-processing-plant/

Wildlife Acts transferred to hostile Agriculture Dept in 2012

On the 22 February 2012 the Victorian Premier, Mr Baillieu, issued a General Order – Administration of Acts in which he gave a huge portion of the Wildlife Act 1975 and the Flora and Fauna Act 1988 to Peter Walsh, effectively taking the control of these Acts out of the hands of the Environment Minister Peter Ryan.

As Minister for Agriculture and Food Security, Peter Walsh has portfolios which include administration for the Meat Industries Act 1993 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. Added to this he has now been given responsibility for pertinent sections of the Wildlife Act and the FFG Act which place him in the perfect situation to introduce this trial. One could justifiably ask what role a Minister for Agriculture can have in the Wildlife Act and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. The answer is an essential role to make permits to cull more available. Peter Walsh is a farmer and scruples about Kangaroos seem to be a non issue.

“And thus I clothe my naked villainy with odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ; and seem a saint, when most I play the devil.” William Shakespeare – Richard III

The annual cost to Victorians for the issue of ATCW permits is around one million dollars; this is because the applicants are not required to pay a fee.

There are more worthwhile ways to put our tax dollars to work, such as research into non lethal methods of controlling wildlife, information to landholders about appropriate fencing and factual information about just how much grass and water a Kangaroo consumes in comparison to sheep and cattle, just to name a few.

Logic says that if landholders were required to pay for their permits the number issued would be drastically reduced.
The linked to ”Kangaroo Pet Food Trial, information for shooters document has been issued by DEPI and like the ATCW guidelines is ambiguous to say the least.

More information about the trials can be found here: http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/environment-and-wildlife/wildlife/wildlife-management/kangaroo-trial.

The Danger to Pets of eating kangaroo meat

No consideration has been given in this trial to the dangers of feeding pets with Kangaroo meat.
Both processed manufactured pet food and raw 'pet meat' products can contain preservatives. Most commonly used is Sulphur Dioxide, which leaches out Thiamine or B1 from the meat. To counteract this, more thiamine is added to the processing and labeled ‘added vitamins’, but this doesn’t stop the depletion of Thiamine, which will continue. (VP Studdert and RH Labuc Veterinary Clinical Centre, University of Melbourne, Werribee 1991.)

The safety issues relating to sulphur dioxide and sodium and potassium sulphite preservatives are that these can cause thiamine deficiency, which causes severe neurological symptoms and can be fatal.

For decades, sulphite preservative induced thiamine deficiency has been frequently recognised by the Australian Veterinary profession. (Please note that thiamine deficiency can also occur when sulphur dioxide containing foods are fed in conjunction with foods not containing sulphur dioxide. This is because the sulphur dioxide in one food can destroy any thiamine present in the other food being fed at the same time).

Some time ago the writer contacted Dr Yasmine Sultanabad, Senior Research Fellow Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, University of Queensland, with this question:

“Sulphur dioxide is added to Kangaroo meat and then vitamin B1 is added to counteract the effect of it's depletion due to the added sulphur dioxide. Can you tell me if the sulphur dioxide continues depleting the B1 which has been added or does it only deplete the B1 found naturally in meat? If the B1 depletion continues could this be the reason for Thiamine deficiency found in cats and dogs eating Kangaroo pet minces?”

This is her reply:

“Thank you for your e-mail and your interest in our research work. You have asked a very good question. Yes metabisulphite (sulphur dioxide is generated subsequently) is added to kangaroo meat and then supplemented with thiamine (vitamin B1) to counteract the depletion of thiamine. Yes the sulphur dioxide continues depleting the B1 which is found naturally in the meat and also which has been added as a supplement. It is due to this reason that thiamine deficiency occurs. I am also attaching a research paper which supports this information.

Dr Denis Napthine, who holds a Masters Degree in veterinary science, has seemingly chosen to ignore the danger to pets. Perhaps getting ahead in the game of politics matters more than all his years of university.

Does this Victorian Government think it can pull the wool over the eyes of every Victorian?