PLEASE make a brief Submission urgently. Under the heading of Competition and Efficiency, economists easily dispense with democratic objections and humane values. Only the strictly illegal is out, and authorities are always willing to change the law if money is involved. The campaign to slaughter kangaroos for their meat in Victoria has been building over the years, despite its unsustainability and the distress it produces in kangaroos and the many people who love this species. The Department of Sustainability has shown itself to utterly lack science or responsibility in monitoring and protecting our native wildlife. More often than not it awards permits to kill kangaroos without checking their justifications. The Auditor General's report in 2009 showed that the Victorian government did not know what it was doing with regard to wildlife. It would therefore be a serious error to change laws to reward kangaroo killing and to make it easier.

Submissions on VCEC draft report and lifting the processing ban on commercially utilising kangaroos

. The Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (VCEC) has released a new draft report calling for lifting the processing ban on commercially utilising kangaroos in Vic, and for a more simplified ATCW permit system, which at its best is already simple and badly under resourced. (A pdf of the Report may be accessed here.)

· Kangaroos are not commercially harvested in Victoria, Northern Territory or the ACT. According to Autsralian government data kangaroo numbers have dramatically declined by 55% since 2001 in commercial shooting zones across Australia, the recent floods have added another heavy toll on kangaroos in those areas.

· There is no data or figures of kangaroo populations in Victoria, the DSE state in their fact sheet that a commercial industry is not viable as set up costs would outweigh profit, public opposition, and low kangaroo numbers.

· Currently a landowner does not have to pay any fee for an ATCW permit to be issued to them; the VCEC report states that it costs approximately $480 per permit application.

· Under the current system it costs Victorian tax payers for landowners to kill protected kangaroos without their say or consent, why then is this cost not passed onto the landowner if they are supposedly benefitting from it?

· This is particularly pertinent to wildlife carers who along with their animals already suffer from ATCW permits given to adjoining landowners placing at risk the very kangaroos they have a license to hand rear.

· The real waste is that kangaroos are killed in the first place, not that they are left to rot.
Please help oppose the commercial processing of kangaroos in Victoria by emailing a submission/letter to the VCEC

Call to lift kangaroo processing ban

Regarding the VCEC draft report in relation to lifting the processing ban on commercially utilising kangaroos in Vic, those seeking more information should read from the Introduction p.57 (1). The section on Authorities to Control Wildlife (ATCWs) is on p.104 (48) but it has been pasted at the end of this article for easy reference.

Wildlife carers are already disadvantaged from ATCW permits given to adjoining landowners placing at risk the very kangaroos they have a license to hand rear.

Currently a landowner does not have to pay a fee for an ATCW permit to be issued to them, the report states that it costs approximately $480 per permit application, along with this it’s argued that the system should be simplified!! As we all well know it already is pretty 'simple'. (funny - it costs to get an FOI (Freedom of Information)!

Your taxes

Under the current system it costs Victorian tax payers for landowners to kill protected kangaroos without their say or consent, why then is this cost not passed onto the landowner if they are supposedly benefiting from it?

If those who seek permits to kill kangaroos had to pay for a permit they might think before applying for one and properties would be inspected to ensure valid reasons are given for issuing them.

Most perpetrators of abuse using ATCW permits are hobby farmers. It would be more appropriate for ATCW to be issued only to landowners whose sole income is from the land/farming.

There is a huge need to educate and to create awareness of how essential it is to protect biodiversity. Make ATCW permits harder to get with tough requirements.

Email your submissions to
[email protected]
Cc [email protected]

Extract from Draft Report: Part 2 – Priorities for Regulatory Reform

An Inquiry into Victoria’s regulatory framework

A draft report for further consultation and input

March 2011

3.2.5 Authority to Control Wildlife

In Victoria, control of wildlife is regulated under the Wildlife Act 1975 (Vic). In particular, lethal control measures are heavily restricted, requiring approval from DSE through an Authority to Control Wildlife (ATCW). DSE states that an ATCW for lethal control measures is issued only as a last resort where other non-lethal options are impractical (DSE 2008b, p. 1).

The Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) (sub. 17, p. 5) identifies ATCWs as a source of excess burden for its members. The submission points to several issues, including:

prohibition on commercial use of kangaroo carcasses

the cost and complexity of obtaining permits.

The VFF also identifies health and safety issues arising from an alleged restriction on removing a culled kangaroo carcass from the point at which the animal dies. The Commission understands that DSE’s guidance materials do, in fact, indicate that the carcasses of animals destroyed under an ATCW can be removed (DSE 2008b, p. 1).

Complexity and delays in the permit application process

Obtaining an ATCW requires the applicant to go through a relatively in-depth approvals process and submit an application form detailing the proposed controlmeasures, and details of other non-lethal control measures already attempted. In many cases a site visit from DSE field officers is a prerequisite to approval.

The rationale for extensive assessment of applications is to ensure that pest kangaroos are only destroyed as a last resort. In 2008, 1592 ATCWs were issued for three species of kangaroo. If wallabies are included, the total increases by 1798. Long term data suggest around 30 000 kangaroos are destroyed under ATCWs each year in Victoria (DSE 2010a).

No data are publicly available on the average cost of individual permits. However, information available to the Commission suggests an industry cost of just under $1 million.1

In its submission, the VFF recommends that kangaroos be ‘declared unprotected’ on private land (sub. 17, p. 5). The Commission does not believe that this would be possible without jeopardising policy outcomes. However, it should be possible to reduce the costs to landholders of obtaining ATCWs without compromising protection of wildlife. In particular, DSE could consider simplifying the application process, as there may be room to:

simplify the application form, consolidating the application and landholder self-assessment to eliminate duplicate requests for information

reduce the need for on-site assessments by field staff.

Prohibition on commercial use of culled kangaroos

The Victorian Government, while allowing lethal control measures for kangaroos and other wildlife (in limited circumstances, as noted above), prohibits commercial use of culled kangaroos (DSE 2010a). ‘Commercial use’ would primarily entail sale of the carcass for processing to meat and leather products (Environment and Natural Resources Committee 2000, p. 93).

This ban is linked to the Government’s overall opposition to establishing a kangaroo meat industry in Victoria, based on a stated low kangaroo population density, and community opposition to commercial kangaroo hunting (Environment and Natural Resources Committee 2000, p. 378). The underlying concern is that introducing additional incentives to destroy ‘pest’ kangaroos could lead to de facto commercial exploitation of the wild population.

The tight controls on ATCWs and the high level of monitoring by DSE suggest that the Government should be able to detect and prevent culls proposed

1 Taking into account the need for a site visit and the rigour of the permit system, a reasonable starting point would be one day per permit. Using default wage, overhead and on-cost assumptions from the Department of Treasury and Finance’s guidance on estimating administrative burdens, this yields an administrative cost associated with each application of approximately $480, or $863 000 across industry. There may be further costs from ongoing damage from pest animals where control action is delayed by administrative processes primarily for the commercial value of kangaroos. Assuming no change in the rate at which ATCWs are granted, permitting the sale of carcasses would pose no further threat to the population, with those animals culled under permit, by definition, being within sustainable limits.

While — as noted by the VFF — it is not clear whether the numbers of kangaroos culled in Victoria would make a kangaroo products industry economic (sub. 17, p. 5), a ban appears unnecessarily burdensome and redundant in light of other measures to protect biodiversity and animal welfare. The Government should consider lifting this ban. If this option is taken, impacts should be monitored closely and, in no later than 3 years, the operation of the scheme should be reviewed to assess whether removal of the ban has harmed welfare or biodiversity outcomes. Draft recommendation 3.5

That the Government change aspects of the control of pest wildlife under Authorities to Control Wildlife (ATCW) to:

simplify the process for obtaining an ATCW

allow commercial use of kangaroos and wallabiesdestroyed under an ATCW, where such use does not compromise other policy objectives.

In Murraylands, South Australia, floods have trapped wombats in their warrens for weeks. Wildlife rescuers have been rescuing them and, as they rescue them, the rescued animals have been digging their friends and relatives out alongside the human rescuers.
Wombats are indeed amazing creatures. See also "The strange and unforgivable decline in wombat appreciation in the 20th century."

Natural Disaster

Donations to Wombat Awareness
'Floods are a natural occurrence but when do we draw the line for considering natural selection when disease, starvation and human impact are already desecrating a species?'

Over 20 warrens lie beneath over 800 000 litres of water, WAO and a team of volunteers spent 6 days removing the water to free the trapped wombats!

In December 2010 an unseasonal deluge of rain hit the core population of the Murraylands wombats. The annual average rainfall is approx 250mls, some areas received 170mls within twelve hours leaving a trail of destruction. Entire burrow systems were filled with water, others simply collapsed under the weight of the water. Hundreds of wombats perished and even more were left trapped within their homes.

WAO sprung into action by launching a wide scale rescue mission pumping hundreds of thousands of litres of water out of burrows systems and manually shovelling dirt away from collapsed burrows where there was no chance for the wombats to escape.

A flood of this magnitude has hit the Murraylands wombats one other time in recorded history yet there was no rescue mission nor any recordings of how the wombats coped with the catastrophe. WAO's work was unprecedented.

Little bodies were removed from the water to avoid contamination whilst the Department of Environment and Natural Resources kindly lent WAO Fire Fighting Pumps to remove water from viable locations. Wildlife Victoria sent two teams of volunteers from their Disaster Response Team and the SES kindly donated their services. Burrow systems by the hundreds were effected and WAO targeted to open at least one hole in each warren to allow chance of escape but the problem was huge.

After seven days volunteers started to see something amazing - freed wombats were starting to dig trapped wombats out of their burrows!! This has never been seen or documented before!

As time went on, more and more burrows were re-opened by other wombats...truly a beautiful sight for weary volunteers.

Today, over a month after this tragic event WAO is still rescuing wombats suffering from secondary complications due to the flood. Emaciated wombats from being trapped in their burrows for prolonged periods of time (there is still no food available as it is SA's dry season), pneumonia and an unseasonal influx of Sarcoptic mange continue to plague this already damaged colony.

The wombats still need your help, oxygen condensers, nebulisers, veterinary treatment and intensive care boxes are desperately needed.

Little Miss Portee was trapped in her burrow for nearly 3 weeks, starving, covered in mould and suffering from pneumonia, she finds comfort at the WAO Intensive Care Unit
Donations to Wombat Awareness for this flood rescue work and aftercare.

Source: http://www.wombatawareness.com/main/page_conservation_projects_flood_appeal.html

See inside for terms of reference and contact details. We also cite some of a contribution from the Property Council of Australia, which urges the government not to put koalas profits and lets them know that it will try to get laws to compensate landowners if development is hampered by koala protection. The council is big on relocation and would probably expect any actions to save the koala to be delayed pending better counting.

See Submissions here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ec_ctte/koalas/submissions.htm.

The Property Council's submission is big on relocation and would probably expect any actions to save the koala to be delayed pending new counts. The problem here is that the government will probably avoid truly comprehensive statistics, so the community needs to demand these be obtained before any new development. In the end, there is already so much development that blind Freddy could work out that koalas must be threatened and one would suspect that the PCA realises this and therefore expects to have some of its ventures blocked by governments, State and Federal usually supine to its demands. PCA's submission here in pdf form.

Terms of Submission

"Regulatory Issues
If it is found that the koala population is indeed under threat, the five issues outlined below must be considered as part of any regulatory or planning change.
• Preservation of Existing Land Use and Development Rights
If further regulation is seen as the appropriate mechanism, it needs to protect and not interfere with existing land use entitlements and development rights, whether or not further development approvals are required. It is unacceptable for existing land use
entitlements and development rights to be eroded without just compensation. The Property Council cautions against approaches that will see the basic rights of land holders removed without compensation."

Inquiry into the status, health and sustainability of Australia's koala population
Terms of Reference
On 17 November 2010 the Senate referred the following matter to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 June 2011, with effect from the first day of sitting of 2011:

The status, health and sustainability of Australia's koala population, with particular reference to:

1. the iconic status of the koala and the history of its management;
2. estimates of koala populations and the adequacy of current counting methods;
3. knowledge of koala habitat;
4. threats to koala habitat such as logging, land clearing, poor management, attacks from feral and domestic animals, disease, roads and urban development;
5. the listing of the koala under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;
6. the adequacy of the National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy;
7. appropriate future regulation for the protection of koala habitat;
8. interaction of state and federal laws and regulations; and
9. any other related matters.

For further information, contact:

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Phone: +61 2 6277 3526
Fax: +61 2 6277 5818
Email: [email protected]

I was moved to investigate further when on April 5th candobetter.net received an anonymous comment, entitled, "Koala left clinging to a tree after land clearing." A link to a photograph of a koala clinging to a tree in a recently cleared paddock showed that someone had actually managed to get photo-evidence of the sickening process of koala extinction - for unwanted development - which goes on under our noses with the blessing of the Queensland Government.[1]

Development in Australia is plain scary!

The photographed koala is just one of the many disappearing (starved, run over, mauled, exposed) koalas on the Queensland Goldcoast, where greedy developments are, ironically, absurdly, destroying the beauty and space they advertise in their brochures. There are no effective laws to stop them in Australia. What is more, the State government in Queensland and the state governments in all the other states of Australia operate like land-companies, making laws to privilege development and ensuring that environmental laws have absolutely no teeth. The justification for such developments is to accommodate population growth, but it is the development lobby that causes the population growth to be politically engineered simply to keep up demand for housing, and to provide an excuse for the intolerable rate of ecological destruction.[2]

As Vivienne Ortega wrote in her admirable article, "Koalas on the edge of survival precipice" on the subject of koala extinction, "There is no way koalas can evolve and adapt fast enough to overcome roads, logging, land clearing, invasive species and pets. The only way koalas could “win” is if they had machine guns to protect them!"

Perron Group

The entity directly backing the development destined for the koala habitat in question is the "Perron Group", which describes itself as "a privately-owned Perth-based Group of Companies owned and controlled by the Chairman, Mr Lloyd Stanley Perron AM." [AM stands for 'Member of the Order of Australia'. Wikipedia describes the Order of Australia as 'an order of chivalry established by Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia on 14 February 1975 "for the purpose of according recognition to Australian citizens and other persons for achievement or for meritorious service"'.]

The Perron group, by its own account, has invested more than $30m in the project which is responsible for the destruction of koalas' homes in an area where the species is severely threatened in a world already over-run with people and suburbs.

The group describes its project as "a world class example of a sustainable master planned community for future generations of Australians."

The intention is to build 3,500 houses on this precious native habitat with a long history of being protected and of continuing community support for its protection.

"Master Plan"

Let us pause for a moment and consider what the notion of a 'master-planned' 'community' must mean to the citizens in the area who may have believed they had self-government, where members of the elected council, such as Councillor Ted Shepherd, have been trying to fight for their rights and for koala and other species habitat since this development application was first proposed. Ironically millionaire Bob Anthes, in a land where money almost always means destruction of wildlife and democracy, had kept this land safe for nature up to his death in 2004. Then, according to Melinda Marshall's article, "Council bushwhacked," of March 22, 2010, a mining magnate, Ross Atkins, took over the 'management' of deceased Bob Anthes' property. Under his management the trees on the property, still zoned as agricultural, were being cut down and milled in their hundreds. What a sad thing!

Balance? What balance? Bank balance?

Mr Alston was quoted on 14 December excusing his actions by saying, "You have to have a balance of natural and human habitat," he said.

What sort of 'balance' is extinction? As Vivienne Ortega writes in "Koalas on the edge of the survival precipice,"...., "The only way koalas could “win” is if they had machine guns to protect them!"

If you want to stand up for the koalas, you can leave comments here for the Perron Group re its "Pacific View Estate." There are a few already, to the effect that just because it's 'legal' that doesn't make it alright. And there is a sad little argument to the effect of, "We cut the trees down for rural management, but we agree with you that farming isn't a good idea so close to urban development, that's why we are putting more houses there." (!)

Pacific View Estate and the Perron Group

The Perron Group consists of many 'players'. CRA, DPZ Pacific, Urban Planning Services, Ocean Park Consulting, James Warren & Associates, LVO Architecture, John Wood Consultancy Services, Bitzios Consulting, Cardno, Steensen Varming and Acoustic Logic Consultancy. On the Pacific View Estate site it says, "Pacific View Estate, a new relationship between natural and human habitats."

This description would also suit TEPCO's business in providing electricity to Japan.

God Squad vs Koalas

CRA claims (on the Pacific View Estate site) to 'work closely' with Mission Australia.

Mission Australia describes itself as having a "founding purpose inspired by Jesus Christ," and that, " Mission Australia exists to meet human need and to spread the knowledge of the love of God'. Furthermore it claims that its "vision" is "to see a fairer Australia by enabling people in need to find pathways to a better life'".

Well, maybe with 'visions' you don't need to look at reality.

Does Mission Australia really think that Jesus would endorse the desecration of the natural world, the extinction of species, the razing of forests, and the abrogation of community self-government through commercially "master-planned" communities dominated by transnational corporations?

Talk about building temples for money-changers! I won't be making a donation to Mission Australia if this is what it supports.

Other organisations involved in this Pacific .... Project.

DPZ Pacific says that its "mission" is "to design and build communities in harmony with the environment in the world’s most dynamic regions for growth." It's a bizarre mix of words, isn't it? I guess you could take it to mean that DPZ Pacific considers this region not for its biodiversity, but for its population growth trends. Thus, to be in harmony with marketed demographic projections, there is nothing wrong with paving over the trees, starving out the koalas and stuffing up local self-government. What is this? Leggoworld? Are the people and their elected representatives just some kind of transformer toys there to animate a sandpit?

DPZ Pacific: "DBIDBI Design," not exactly what you would want for a natural environment, this architectural firm, going by the photos on its website.

Urban Planning Services - UPS ... More planners.

Ocean Park Consulting: "Ocean Park Consulting Pty Limited is a Gold Coast based company that provides to government agencies and private enterprise organisations delivery management, approvals engineering, environmental planning and integrated infrastructure planning services.

Ocean Park Consulting's extensive professional experience in major land development and infrastructure projects facilitates early recognition of potential project constraints and opportunities and allows for development of effective management strategies to ensure positive project outcomes, to strive to achieve a balance between the needs of the natural environment and the human environment. "

That word, "balance" again, in such an unbalanced project of machines against nature.

James Warren & Associates is described on the site as "a specialist environmental consulting company which has been operating since 1987." It is claimed that "JWA have completed a detailed assessment of the Ecological Values of the Pacific View Estate site" and that the company has "identified the potential impacts of the proposed development on these values and have recommended various mitigation measures" and that "in consultation with the team of experts, JWA have assisted to design a concept plan that provides for the conservation of the ecologically significant values occurring on site."

Wonder what they had to say about the koalas and chopping down all the trees? Speak up, James Warren and Associates! Are you pleased or did they ignore what you recommended?

(Then again, how can anyone in this group speak up? Their livings depend on this process continuing. So someone else has to stop it.)

LVO’ Architecture ... More builders...

John Wood Consultancy Services was established in December 2000, as the Principal Recreation and Environmental Planner with EDAW (Australia) Pty Ltd. On JWC's site there is a notice which states that the operator is "a current member of the Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation" and explains that all such members "have agreed to abide by QORF's Code of Ethics." If you go to the site that lists those ethics, which are quite admirable. It is therefore surprising to see that one of their members should be associated with a project which is now linked to destruction of koala habitat and the razing of trees on a property once known for its conservation values, now transformed into a corporate vs community battleground.

Bitzios Consulting is an Australian traffic engineering and transport planning consultancy that operates on an international scale.

Cardno: Grogan Richards Consulting Engineers has merged with transnationals Cardno, an "infrastructure services firm" which, like others on the Pacific View Estate, professes to be creating "better communities across the globe". Its "client base includes builders, developers, shopping centre owners and managers, local government, government departments, architects, manufacturers, retailers, town planners and the legal profession."

Steensen Varming - construction, engineering, incorporating "environmentally responsible features."

Acoustic Logic Consultancy - more engineering and construction of a specialised nature. "With the implementation of this wealth of knowledge and experience, ALC and the Pacific View Farm have endeavoured to ensure that this project will not have detrimental acoustic impact on the future and existing residents of Worongary."

With such a corporate army of spin-doctors and built-environmentalists what hope do koalas or democracy have? In fact the koala might well stand for local democracy because both democracy and koalas are doomed in this commercial transnational environment, with its practitioners determined to ram their steel constructions down the locals' throats with the saccharine-sugar coating of a few promised 'jobs' which may well go to imported labour.

Oh what evil in Australia is done in the name of "jobs", where once there was land and food to spare and the possibility of a just society.

Out of control

The Gold Coast Council administers a once-magnificent part of Australia and oversees a great deal of callous destruction and environmental degradation in the name of continuous population growth - which most people explicitly reject in polls.

The growth is driven by investors who only see the returns on their balance-sheets and apparently lack the wit to examine the greater costs - to social capital and local, national and global biodiversity. This tragic process which currently entraps Australia was magnified to greater heights than ever before in the mid-1990s, as the global internet took off and as the last feeble obstacles to foreign purchase and investment of Australian real-estate were removed. Policies were put in place to turbo charge the financial turnover on an international scale, leading to the so-called global financial crisis. But we are dealing with addicts here, so the crisis machine was cranked up again with public money.

The homes will be bought by outsiders mostly, with no knowledge, loyalty or emotional investment in the community - rather like the developers, one suspects.

NOTES

[1] http://candobetter.net/node/2415#comment-6239

[2] I recently talked with a lawyer who had just graduated from a post-grad course in Environmental Law. I asked her if there was anything in it. "Nothing," she said. "Absolutely nothing. It's completely shocking!" She added, "I took the course to see if my first impression was really true, that the environmental laws in Australia didn't work. And it was true! We have no environmental law!"

Sources:
Melinda Marshall, "Council bushwacked," March 22nd, 2010.

Lucy Ardern, "Koala sighting incites conservation debate," Gold Coast News, April 5th, 2011

Here is a lovely video about the hope in the lives of rescued baby orangutans in Indonesia.

Luna the Orangutan was rescued last spring and brought to the Sintang Orangutan Center, which is managed by Orangutan Outreach. Luna & her friends at Sintang need support. You can adopt Luna for $10 a month! Go to http://redapes.org/adopt

There will be an Orangutan Awareness Day event at Belmore Park, Sydney, on Sunday November 13th from 12.00pm - 3.00pm. As well as speakers and information tables, there will be the usual fairground attractions with cake stalls, merchandise stalls, face painting, and posters.

The causes of orangatan orphans and the species' threatened extinction are economic growthism, population growthism, overdevelopment and destruction of forest for broad-acre cropping, which also destroys the lives of humans who live there still. The answer is to out the growthists in your community and to make growthism known for the obscenity it is.

The Center for Biological Diversity has a very successful campaign linking human population growth to other species loss. They sell "Endangered species condoms." Their creative approach has now been independently recognised by, of all things, the American Advertising Federation. Good on them!

Our wildly popular Endangered Species Condoms are getting some additional love. This week we found out the colorfully packaged condoms, part of our campaign highlighting the connection between overpopulation and species extinction, won the American Advertising Federation's gold ADDY Award in Tucson in the "public service" category. In case you haven't seen them, the nifty condom packages feature illustrations of six different endangered species, along with catchy slogans like "Cover your tweedle, save the burying beetle" and "Wear a jimmy hat, save the big cat." The Center handed out 350,0000 condoms last year and hopes to send more out soon to draw attention to this crucial issue. Through the empowerment of women, education of all people and universal access to birth control, we can curb our population to an ecologically safe level.

But some members of Congress are making that very hard. In fact, the House has just passed a bill to cut government funding for critical programs like women's health clinics -- which for millions of people provide the only available access to reproductive services, family planning and birth control. With this February marking Global Population Speak Out month, it's time to tell our elected representatives they should be expanding those programs, not cutting them -- for the sake of our planet and the public.

Check out our Endangered Species Condoms Project and sign the GPSO pledge. Then learn more about the legislative attack on family-planning services from politico.com and contact your senators asking them to counter it. (Ed. Actually www.politico.com doesn't appear to have any directly accessible information on this subject.)

The Center for Biological Diversity

[The following material comes directly from the Center for Biological Diversity.]

Through a network of more than 5,000 volunteers, in 2010 the Center for Biological Diversity distributed 350,000 free Endangered Species Condoms in all 50 states — as well as Canada, Puerto Rico, and Mexico — to highlight how unsustainable human population growth is driving species extinct at a cataclysmic rate.

The earth’s population has nearly doubled since the original Earth Day in 1970. In those days, it was well understood that human overpopulation was causing the many environmental challenges cropping up around the world. Now, with the passing of the 40th anniversary of the original Earth Day, unsustainable human population growth is too often ignored, even though it continues to drive all the major environmental problems that plague our planet.

At 6.9 billion people, the human race is not only the most populous large mammal on Earth but the most populous large mammal that has ever existed. Providing for the needs and wants of this many people — especially those in high-consumption, first-world nations — has pushed homo sapiens to absorb 50 percent of the planet’s freshwater and develop 50 percent of its landmass. As a result, other species are running out of places to live.
Human overpopulation is the driving force behind the current mass-extinction crisis, endangering:
• 12 percent of mammals
• 12 percent of birds
• 31 percent of reptiles
• 30 percent of amphibians
• 37 percent of fish

To help people understand the impact of overpopulation on other species, and to give them a chance to take action in their own lives, the Center is distributing free packets of Endangered Species Condoms depicting six separate species: the polar bear, snail darter, spotted owl, American burying beetle, jaguar, and coquí guajón rock frog.

The beautifully designed packages, featuring clever slogans, are being distributed by a network of 5,000 volunteers ranging from ministers to grandmothers to healthcare providers to college students and biologists. The condoms will be handed out at concerts, bars, universities, spiritual groups, local events, and farmer’s markets. Along with two condoms, each package contains original artwork and information on the species, facts about overpopulation and the extinction crisis, and suggestions on how the human population can be stabilized.

To help ensure a world that is livable for other species — and healthy and prosperous for us — practice responsible reproduction and learn more about the Center’s campaign to address overpopulation.

The sadistic atrocities occurring against our indigenous inhabitants - kangaroos - at Morisset hospital is totally shameful and horrendous.  Why haven't these atrocities been stopped and the sadists captured?  It is disgraceful that the Morisset kangaroos have been slaughtered for years and the only people to help are a handful of wildlife volunteers.

Sadistic attacks on kangaroos at Morisset Hospital

 
The sadistic atrocities occurring against our indigenous inhabitants - kangaroos - at Morisset hospital is totally shameful and horrendous.  More than 100 have been horrifically massacred in blood-curdling ferocity, and people are worried for public safety?

Hoons have been entering the hospital grounds at night and running down the kangaroos. Why haven't these atrocities been stopped and the sadists captured? 

Security guards at the Hospital contacted the Wildlife Rescue Service at 11pm in May 2008 at night after at least five adult kangaroos were killed, orphaning three joeys.

It is disgraceful that the Morisset kangaroos have been slaughtered for years and the only people to help are a handful of wildlife volunteers.

These ferals need to be caught and cut down.  They could easily be motivated by people with vested interests in property development. 

Developments erode living conditions for kangaroos – and corruption abounds

In 1900, 1300 acres on the western side of Lake Macquarie were reserved for the construction of a psychiatric hospital. The Morisset section of the State Conservation Area in particular has an extensive degraded landscape formerly used for farming and grazing. Removal of livestock from this area is resulting in a proliferation of agricultural and environmental weeds.

2005 - After a four year fight, residents opposing a $90 million development at Morisset failed to stop it going ahead. Lake Macquarie council gave the Johnson Property Group approval to proceed with stage one of its development on the former St John of God site, meaning it could develop 31 residential lots.

2005 Lake Macquarie Council received an application from Terry Lawler, the administrator of Koompahtoo, to rezone about 100 hectares of the 850 hectare site original given to the Aboriginal land council by the State Government. The rezoning of the former Morisset hospital land would allow for the construction of up to 1,800 houses.

Lake Macquarie Mayor Greg Piper was going to write to the New South Wales Planning Minister outlining his concerns about the proposed $200 million Trinity Point marina near Morisset.

August 2008 - Councillors resolved to prepare a draft amendment to the city's local environment plan, paving the way for 305 houses to be built on land surrounding the course.

The Koompahtoo Land Council was plagued by corruption allegations in 2009, after it won the state's largest land grant, 850 hectares near the former Morisset hospital site.

Kangaroo “cull” for public safety?

June 2010 is was reported that kangaroos may have to be culled at Morisset amid rising fears for “public safety”, with the animals said to be increasing at an unsustainable rate. With kangaroos going further into nearby residential areas than ever before , authorities have urged the public to stop feeding them. The fact that residential areas are expanding is ignored!

The idea of "culling" kangaroos at Morisset for "fears of public safety" is deadly twisted logic and irrational.   Why shoot the victims? 

With Australia's population growth, the unsustainable growth comes from creatures on two legs that aren't macropods!   Our own population growth is forcing extinctions, stealing habitat and livelihoods from native species. 

Kangaroos have proved their suitability to Australia through evolution and millions of years of existence here.

Kangaroos are the victims of the public, not the threat

Lake Macquarie MP and mayor Greg Piper said he had heard anecdotal reports of offenders bragging at a Morisset pub (Dec 2010) about killing kangaroos in the hospital grounds. Two men entered the pub with kangaroo scrotums and a fight erupted after some people took offence.

Humans are encroaching, and the safety issues should be about kangaroos being mutilated and run down, not the contrary!   The police must arrest the perpetrators, and the hospital must ensure the safety of all living residents on their grounds.  As psychologists say, sadists who torture animals end up being criminals against humans, so the public are not safe while they are loose!

The police need to make sure the criminals are arrested and charged with the highest possible penalties for violating protected animals, and the hospital must upgrade their security and ensure the animals grazing on their grounds are  protected.

Both male & female kangaroos and their helpless babies have been subjected to acts of shocking depravity.

Up to $2000 in cash for information leading to a conviction is offered.

Leisa Moore area  S.A. representative of A.W.P.C. added: Please make a donation to stop the killing of these baby kangaroos and help us bring the criminals to justice. Just go to the A.W.P.C. website and include the word ‘Reward’ with your donation. We need your help and your support to catch these sadistic killers   

KINDNESS HOUSE, 2nd Floor, 288 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, Victoria 3065 Australia
OR
If you are transferring/sending/depositing funds into AWPC’s account from overseas, you will also need the Bank’s ‘Swift Code’:
 
BSB   063535
Account 10090791
Swift Deposit CTBAAU2S
(Q. What is a SWIFT Code?
A. SWIFT stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication.  It is the unique identification code for a particular bank.  These codes are used when transferring money between banks, particularly for international wire transfers.  The SWIFT Code for Commonwealth Bank is CTBAAU2S. )

Please include your name as reference when making a deposit.
Also, email Maryland Wilson, kangaroo@ hotkey.net.au and leave your name and address so a receipt can be sent to you.

 Be sure to include your name and address for your Receipt.  

Photos by courtesy of Les Hutchinson - thanks!

UPDATE September 21, 2010: Millionaire bequest due in 12 months - but money urgently needed now.


On 7 August 2009 I wrote an article about the Wombat Awareness Organisation, which also referred to some interesting 19th century attitudes to wombats in Britain. On September 21 we learned that, although Brigitte Stevens still needs funding urgentlyfor another 12 months or so, after that the organisation expects the release of the first million dollar installment of an $8m bequest from a US horse-racing millionaire! So rarely do wildlife carers get the recognition they deserve for giving recognition and rights back to our fellow creatures. How wonderful to know that there are some rich people in the world who are not, apparently, entirely given over to land speculation and undermining democracy.

To see the whole article:

For the whole article, with the update at the end, see, "Hairy-nosed wombat, South Australia - rescue effort well worth supporting"

Click to go to New article 1 October 2010.
Photos by Jill Quirk added on 21 July. Latest Update 20 July: More Picket News! This will make you angry. In the first project to come under the notorious "Major Transport Facilitation Act," bulldozers move in to nationally significant heritage Westerfield before the Heritage Council Decision comes out. Picket line ongoing, since 5 July. Contacts for the picket site: S Walsh Mobile: 0405 380 312 Also Gillian Collins Pines Protectors 0414 309 960 and Jim Kerin Defenders of the South East Green Wedge Mobile 0409 501 764. Original notice was from Julianne Bell, Secretary, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197, Parkville 3052, Mobile: 0408022408

Update 16 September 2010: Urgent - Reinforcements required now!

THE SITUATION AT WESTERFIELD HAS BECOME DESPERATE. After the picket line holding them at bay all winter, the Heritage Exective Director has signed off the plan for destruction. So this Heritage property will be destroyed when they could take the road another route. Help now needed - an hour or two, to front up to the bulldozers which could arrive at any time.

"After the terrible meeting yesterday, LMA asked for another with the Welsh's today and broke the news that the Heritage Executive Director has signed off on the revised plan leaving a little more of the dam.

The plan they discussed was : 1) the dam would begin to be lowered so the aquatic animals can be rescued, then it would be drained completley.; 2) at the same time, the fence alignment will be cleared; 3) the construction fence constructed in its new location, and 4) the fauna sweep conducted. Carol Bartley of Southern Way said the nesting boxes will be set up 24 hours ahead of the tree removal so the animals can escape - we were speechless.

We believe LMA and Southern Way are in violation of their Incorporation Document, since they are not minimising the damage to Westerfield's. If the Heritage Appeal had not gone through, they would have made no changes at all - they are determined to destroy this magnificent piece of grassy woodland for the sake of the road. We are about to take an action against them.

The good news is that the Trades Hall Council and the CFMEU are supporting us, and they believe with us that no work should proceed until such time as all legal avenues have been exhausted.

To that end, we need every available supporter to join us on the picket starting tomorrow morning. If you were ever going to help us out - now is the time to do it. Give us an hour or give us a day - we do not know what day they are starting, but we have been notified, and "soon" is any moment from now on. Please distribute this call to action to all your networks.

Gillian Collins
Pines Protectors

0414 309 960"

Update 15 September 2010: Organising the picket up to Victorian Election time

Gillian Collins has led a picket on Westerfield for the last 10 weeks. This has been a deliberate and sustained effort to achieve a better outcome from the Government’s merciless push for Peninsula Link. Peninsula and Western Port need a vastly better, sustainable and greener future than the Brumby government plans for them. Many people have made enormous efforts put their considerable resources into different aspects of the same issue, and the efforts to draw the line at Westerfield are among the most remarkable and admirable.

Gillian, the Welsh family, and a couragous and reliable group have picketed seven days a week from early morning until the end of the work day. They have been visited by over 300 individuals and supported by nearly 30 environmental groups across the Peninsula and across Melbourne.

Their efforts have not been in vain: It looks like the road easement across Westerfield is still being negotiated, as there has been no clearing of Westerfield. Minister Pallas may be listening.

The amazing picketers are giving their utmost, but as in any concerted and long-term action in the face of vested interests in government and corporate enterprise, their numbers need constant supplement. The picket line needs a continuing supply of regular, reliable, individuals. They need tangible support and encouragement - both bodies and funding.

The Pines Protectors, a sub-committee of the Frankston North Community Group, Inc., and which Gillian chairs, have organised CMFEU support for the picket and have received help from The Greens Party. Supporters of the picket have established that the Abigroup construction was started before the legalities were complete and that the Native Vegetation Framework offsets are required before works start (despite information by government). DSE, LMA, LGA Councils and DEWHA must implement the full requirements our environmental laws. Gillian has made a major contribution to the community consultation process supporting the significant efforts of the Frankston community and the two local councils.

At a strategy meeting on Friday, the meeting recognised that a picket up to the elections is required. But that needs on-ground support.

Conservationists the Peninsula recognise that the 40 year-plan to industrialise greater Melbourne and Western Port poses serious threats, through incremental losses - large and small - on our remaining natural environment.

This infrastructure growth is deceptively portrayed by the media and government as a "part of our community’s vision." There needs to be a bolder plan for an environmental and sustainable future.

Tangible support to the picket could help this.

Help is needed to man the Westerfield Picket with more than 60 person days from now till Election day. Offers of help can be made to Gillian Collins and donations up to $1000 to The Pines Protectors are being sought to support further action on their behalf. (Contact Gillian or Pines Protectors)

More Picket News 20 July 2010

"A really cold start to the day was warmed by the presence of four beautiful children brought by David W. and Ted H. With Kate's lovely hairy Dachshunds, they brightened up the day no end. Then the team from the Friends of the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve came and did some weed pulling at Westerfields and joined us for lunch on the picket line. What a great
group they are!

In case you missed it, Bill Russell from the Centre for Urban Studies recommended on ABCs Stateline on Friday that:

"...we will probably see the metro rail tunnel funded in the next two or three rounds of federal funding. But as I say, the trucks action plan is quite small; it's only $380 million and the state could fund that from its own resources, really. And then, I think that both the WestLink and the Peninsula Link really ought to be postponed five or10 years into the future."

It is still on the web if you want to see it - Google "Stateline" and then click on Friday's program.

With a State and Federal election looming, we remain hopeful that this project will be stopped, the land repaired, and more public transport and an upgrade to Moorooduc Highway will be considered. It's not too late.

We're looking at a week of cold and cloudy weather - the Melbourne winters I remember from my youth - but we will still be on the picket line. Please come and give us what time you can."

Signed: Gillian Collins

UPDATE 16 JULY: PICKET-LINE ONGOING!

"Our picket day started with Michelle C. delivering the attached brochure to the Bayside Christian School. Michelle did a brilliant job of capturing the essential environmental values that, we assume, the school teaches. The school had a working bee today, and she delivered the brochure to parents, the Principal, and the "Light FM" radio station that was broadcasting from the school.

Later in the day, we had 4 visits from Grade 10 students asking about our picket. This evening I find that David M. from WPPC has sent an e-mail to the school asking that students be allowed to join us - an unplanned but great coincidence.

Greg Hunt, our Federal Shadow Environment Minister, paid a visit, and we are hoping for his support for an immediate halt to the destruction and a better solution for all of us, including the school.

Peter K. showed us the photo of the skink that he carried home unknowingly yesterday in his tea cup in his backpack. He only found it when he went to clean the cup last night. He called Mel, who told him how to keep the skink comfortable overnight, and he returned it, unharmed, this morning.

Such tender care in the face of such a brutal future for this tiny member of our ecosystem.

E.O. Wilson, famous ant biologist and author, wrote a book called "Consilience," in which he predicts that there will come a time soon when our individual scientific fields of knowledge will consiliate (jump together) and we will understand the nature of the universe. It feels as though we have a consilience of effort at the picket site, and that we are beginning to really have an effect.

We will continue. Hope to see you there some time this week-end."

Signed Gillian Collins

BACKGROUND AND EARLIER REPORTS

In the first project to come under the notorious "Major Transport Facilitation Act," bulldozers move in to nationally significant heritage Westerfield before the Heritage Council Decision comes out. Picket line ongoing, with effect. Work will probably start tomorrow (6 July) or Wednesday (7 July).

UPDATE: REPORT ON TODAY'S ACTION RESULTS BELOW. Contacts for the picket site: S Walsh Mobile: 0405 380 312 Also Gillian Collins Pines Protectors 0414 309 960 and Jim Kerin Defenders of the South East Green Wedge Mobile 0409 501 764. Original notice was from Julianne Bell, Secretary, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.

(See contact information at end of article.)

Why is this picket-line so important?

Expression of public protest on this destructive and undemocratic process is of great importance because this project is the first to come under the "Major Transport Facilitation Act." For this reason it will attract a lot of interest.

UPDATE 3: REPORT FOR 7 JULY

Another amazing day today, and still no bulldozers. It would seem that Abigroup is now held up until a satisfactory resolution can be found to the outstanding issues about Westerfields. We feel strongly, however. that the picket should be maintained until that happens.

An exciting innovation will occur, we hope, tomorrow, when we go live with a computer camera from the Robinson's Road side. Craig Allen will be streaming the resulting images from our web site, www.savethepines.net

We had more [mainstream] media interest today, and some of the picketers stopped by to help because they drove by and saw our signs. Melanie Attard has done a brilliant job of making them, and the coverage in The Independent , we
think, caused lots of folk to hoot and wave encouragement all day long.

Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands drove from the City on Sunday to bring her "Community Picket" sign for us to use, and her brilliant strategic abilities have inspired a lot of what we are doing so successfully now.

Please join us whenever you can. We will be there every day until we get a more positive outcome than is now planned. There are so many interesting people stopping by, that we promise you won't be bored! And there will be
more singing tomorrow.

Gillian Collins, Pines Protectors

UPDATE 2: REPORT FOR 6 JULY

Another amazing day today. The situation is still incredibly fluid, and picketers hear that tomorrow (7 July) may be the day they try to bring the bulldozers in.

A "Community Picket" has been established on both sides of the site, and drivers of the equipment have been asked not cross the line until the unresolved issues with Heritage Victoria and wildlife rescue are resolved.

Today representatives from the CFMEU were on the site, thanks to Colin Long, Greens Candidate for South Eastern Metropolitan area. These union reps have been very encouraging about supporting the picket.

As many people as possible are needed to man the picket.

The picket is situated at Robinsons Road (MEL 103 C11) from 7:00am. Easy parking is at Bayside Christian College, just before the traffic signals that are closing one lane of Robinsons Road for gas line relocation. Walk on up to where the picket is and you will be assisted to get to the rear picket.

Today there were twice as many people as yesterday, and more tomorrow would be good. Some groups that have been
represented are:

Frankston City Council, Mornington Council, Protectors of Public Lands, The Greens, Green Wedges Coalition, Animalia Wildlife Shelter, Environment Victoria,The Connies, Western Port Protection Council, Friends of the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve, Pines Protectors group of the Frankston North Community Group, Inc., Australian Wildlife Protection Council, Inc., Blue Wedges, Friends of Banyule, and the Public Transport Users Group.

Mainstream media who have been present or are following are: Channel 7, 9, 10, ABC, The Independent and The Age.

Thanks to Peter for the chips, Ronnie for the coffee, Jenny for the tea and home made biscuits, and Joyce and Simon for the egg and bacon sandwiches and afternoon tea!

Source [edited]: Gillian Collins
Pines Protectors, 03-9782-5116, 0414 309 960

UPDATE 1: REPORT ON FIRST ACTIONS: Monday 5 July 18:24 p.m.

Gillian Collins of Pines Protectors reports that the community picket line was successful, and the bulldozers did not come on the site. They were parked across the street all day, and a lot of their folk stood around idle.

Volunteers showed up, brought signs and soup and chips, and generally kept the protestors feeling really positive all day.

Gillian writes that great thanks are due to the Mayor, Christine Richards, who stayed all morning and gave lots of interviews to the press. Similarly, she writes that thanks are also due to Neale Burgess, Member of Parliament for Hastings, David Morris, Member for Mornington, and Geoff Shaw, candidate for the seat of Frankston, who all stayed a long time and gave the picketers their support.

She adds that the picket starts again tomorrow starting at 7:00am sharp. There will be two locations, the one on Robinsons Road and on the west side of the property, where the bulldozers are now parked. (MEL 103 C11) If you can come, please come to the Robinson's road site and we'll send half of you to the other side. Bring a torch is you're really early, because it was very dark without street lights. Dress warmly, too!

There was strong mainstream media interest - Channel 7, 9, 10, and ABC were there, plus a reporter from the Independent.

Because this project is the first to come under the "Major Transport Facilitation Act" it is getting a lot of interest and is also very important. More people to support the picket line will be very welcome.

Source [edited]: Gillian Collins
Pines Protectors, 03-9782-5116, 0414 309 960

Background and earlier reporting

Today: 7 am Monday 5 July 2010 construction will start on the Westerfield bushland heritage property. It is being bulldozed for the peninsula Link freeway route. Local groups will be picketing the site.

Work is to start despite the fact that :

* The Westerfield appeal was heard in the Heritage Council on 25 June 2010 and no cldecision has been made. The Heritage Council was reported to have said that the members would not be hurried into making a decision.

* There still appears to be a dispute over the question of whether vegetation offsets has been finalised.

On Monday 28 2010 June a resolution was put to Frankston Council and carried unanimously that "That Council seeks the assurance of the Linking Melbourne Authority and the Department of Environment and Sustainability that Vegetation Offsets required of the Peninsula Link project and the location and detail of such offsets will be determined prior to further clearing occurring. That such offsets for Frankston native vegetation will be taken up within the municipality in consultation with Council to ensure that there will be a net gain of native vegetation within the municipality."

The Frankston Council is again considering the matter at a Council meeting tomorrow night.

* The owners were given less than 24 hours notice of the start of land clearing/construction and have not been given a time table for works .

If anyone in the area can help attend the picket the details are:

Time: 7 am start but it may well continue during the morning.

Date: Monday 5 July 2010

Place: Robinson's Road, Frankston South. See Melways Map Page 103 C 11. The site of the picket is next to Bayside Christian College and near the intersection of Mc Clelland Drive and Robinson's Road. As the road might be
blocked it is suggested that you approach via Robinsons Road and drive into the Westerfield property to park.

The driveway is opposite Robinsons Park and is just past a white water tower. It will be signposted. Then you will have to walk down to the end of the road. Note that the proposed route of the freeway is marked on the Melways map.

From the Victorian Heritage Database

Westerfield
Location

86 - 96 Robinson's Road,FRANKSTON, Frankston City
For further details, contact the local council or go to Planning Schemes Online.

Level of Significance: National

Statement of Significance

Designed in 1924 for Russell and Mabel Grimwade by Harold Desbrowe Annear, Westerfield is the most intact example of the series of houses Annear remodelled, or designed on the Mornington Peninsula in the 1920s which demonstrate the vitality of early twentieth century eclecticism. Moving away from the more formal urban Georgian style, Annear responds to the "playground" ambience of the peninsula with a range of formal attitudes. Westerfield itself is a Y plan half timbered house built on a granite base somewhat reminiscent of French country architecture.

However, the significance of Westerfield lies not only with its architecture but also its owners and its place in a particular Melbourne culture of the 20th century.

Conceived as a working farm as well as a retreat, Westerfield's grounds are planted with the euclypt species Grimwade cultivated and recorded in a photographic study. With his friend Charles Lane-Poole, first Principal of the School of Forestry at Canberra, Grimwade was ahead of his time in matters of conservation and land use, seeking a workable alliance with industry. During the war, the property was given over to growing crops for medicinal drugs; poppies, lavender, foxglove and belladonna. The house, garden and grounds are included in the classification of Westerfield which is considered to be of national significance.

First Classified 12/12/90
Revised: Classified National 3/8/98

CONTACT DETAILS

Contacts for the picket site: S Walsh Mobile: 0405 380 312 Also Gillian
Collins Pines Protectors 0414 309 960 and Jim Kerin Defenders of the South
East Green Wedge Mobile 0409 501 764

The above article was based on a notice from Julianne Bell, Secretary, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197, Parkville 3052, Mobile: 0408022408

Authorities are bracing in northern Australia for an influx of protesters representing Gouldian finch societies and breeders throughout the globe. Police fear a repeat of last years bloodbath when Mitchell hopping mouse advocates protested against further degradation of the marsupials habitat in South Australia.

Lovers of the popular aviary finch are incensed at the inaction of Australian governments in protecting what little habitat remains for the endangered bird. Gouldian finch societies from Australia, the USA, South Africa and many European countries have banded together to raise awareness of the damage that pastoral activities and modern fire regimes are doing to the birds habitat.

Australian Gouldian Finch Society spokesperson Terry Anderson has made an emotional plee to the Australian public to help fight for the remaining Gouldian finch habitat:

“There are only 2500 of these beautiful birds left in the wild…. All Australians have a responsibility to prevent this species from becoming extinct in its natural environment and we are here to remind them of that responsibility”

Police in Katherine, NT are expecting hundreds of protestors and are expected to use a zero tolerance policy after similar protests in South Australia last year resulted in 15 arrests and several police officers injured. Sgt Mackey of NT police states:

“Whilst the 2009 confrontations with South Australian police were instigated by breeders and owners of Mitchell’s hopping mice fighting for habitat protection… we must anticipate that the Gouldian Finch people are capable of the same emotionally driven violence that have made the hopping mouse advocates a household name”

Wildlife advocacy groups and other critics of Gouldian finch breeders claim that dwindling finch numbers are due in no small part to the aviary trade and poaching continues to be a problem as demand for the finch increases. Furthermore they claim that breeding of the finch involves colour and behaviour selection that does not mimic wild Gouldian finch populations. Terry Anderson refutes these claims:

“They’re just nit picking. If the Gouldian becomes extinct in the wild, we are the ones they will come running to”

Outspoken supporter of keeping native animals as pets Prof Mike Archer was (unusually) unavailable for comment.

Congratulations Jill Redwood, leader of Environment East Gippsland! In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court has found that the government has a responsibility to look for and protect endangered wildlife before logging in the contentious Brown Mountain forests of East Gippsland. “This judgment has implications for all native forests that are set to be destroyed by logging,” said EEG spokesperson Jill Redwood. “If we hadn’t sued VicForests, Brown Mountain would have been illegally logged by now. And Brown Mountain is just one area. The government is logging publicly owned forests every day without endangered species surveys.”
EEG Website for more updates
To find out more about the history of this battle, which has demanded so much courage and committment from people like Jill Redwood and those who fight with her, see the section: Brown Mountain in Candobetter

Landmark decision enforces law to defend animals and trees

In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court has found that the government has a responsibility to look for and protect endangered wildlife before logging in the contentious Brown Mountain forests of East Gippsland.

“This judgment has implications for all native forests that are set to be destroyed by logging,” said EEG spokesperson Jill Redwood.

Decision shows the battle was just and necessary

“If we hadn’t sued VicForests, Brown Mountain would have been illegally logged by now. And Brown Mountain is just one area. The government is logging publicly owned forests every day without endangered species surveys.”

“We are calling on the government to respect the judgment by stopping logging in native forests that may contain rare wildlife, until the full implications of this judgment are examined.”

“VicForests, the Government-owned logging monopoly, has a legal responsibility to protect endangered wildlife. They can’t just go in and log blindfolded.”

“Victorians have always known native forest logging is immoral, uneconomic, unaccountable, unsustainable and unpopular. Today we’ve proved that where endangered species are present, or likely to be present, it’s potentially illegal as well”.

Will the Victorian Government try to defy the courts as well as the law now?

“This extraordinary court case isn’t just about protecting Brown Mountain’s rich and ancient ark of rare wildlife; it’s about forcing the government to abide by its laws as anyone else would”, said Ms Redwood.

“This represents a win for the state’s rare forest dependent wildlife. It’s also a win for all Australians who are concerned about the environment.”

Next danger may be Government attempt to change laws to suit itself

Environment groups are now concerned that the government may attempt to alter the laws to allow the destruction of endangered species habitat, as happened in Tasmania in 2008.

“The government must now honour the law, not alter it”, said Ms Redwood.

Forest supporters will gather at Victorian parliament tomorrow at 1pm, to ask the Environment Minister, Shadow Environment Minister and Greens for their response to the judgment.

For comment:

Jill Redwood – EEG Convenor

Liz Ingham – EEG Secretary -
Vanessa Bleyer – solicitor for EEG –

Tasmanian wildlife are in a terrible situation and there is a great need for better laws to look after their welfare and habitat. Candobetter did articles on this problem Tasmania, West Australia, Victoria - our wildlife are ignored by government, and fortunately the recent Auditor General Special Report No. 78, Management of threatened species (Tasmania) will hopefully provide a good basis for your submissions. Please send your submissions to us and we will publish them.

The closing date for submissions is Friday 13 August 2010.

Tasmania: Native Plants & Animals, Changes to laws

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Native Plants & Animals, Wildlife Regulations Review

Wildlife Regulations Review

Public submissions invited by 13 August 2010.

The following extracts are taken from the Government site at http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/LBUN-87L4Q9?open

Please refer there for files and applications>

The Tasmania Government is reviewing the Wildlife Regulations to provide a regulatory framework that ensures the best possible outcomes for the natural environment and the Tasmanian community.

The Wildlife Regulations 1999 govern the protection, control and management of our native fauna. They regulate a wide range of activities that have potential impacts on Tasmania’s wildlife, including:

* The recreational and commercial use of wildlife in Tasmania (including hunting)
* Wildlife exhibitions and displays
* Deer farming
* Wildlife licences, permits and record keeping requirements.

It is proposed that the new Regulations will be replaced as set out below.

The Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010
These Regulations will govern the recreational and commercial activities concerning wildlife including:

* Wildlife licences and permits (conditions, issue, renewal, cancellation and appeal processes)
* Tagging, marking and record keeping requirements
* The taking and trading in wildlife and wildlife products, including requirements for importing and exporting wildlife
* Hunting
* Taxidermy
* Offences.

Download Draft Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010 as a PDF Draft Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010
(PDF: 853 KB / 114 pages) View PDF as HTML

This is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and requires the use of Adobe Acrobat Reader. The Reader is easy to download and is free of charge.

Download Review of Wildlife Regulations 2010 - Guide to Proposed Changes as a PDF Review of Wildlife Regulations 2010 - Guide to Proposed Changes
(PDF: 374 KB / 2 pages) View PDF as HTML

This is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and requires the use of Adobe Acrobat Reader. The Reader is easy to download and is free of charge.

Download Review of Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010
Guide to Part 4 - Taxidermy as a PDF Review of Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010
Guide to Part 4 - Taxidermy
(PDF: 344 KB / 2 pages) View PDF as HTML

This is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and requires the use of Adobe Acrobat Reader. The Reader is easy to download and is free of charge.

Wildlife (Exhibited Animals) Regulations 2010
These Regulations will govern the exhibition of wildlife, including wildlife parks and travelling wildlife displays, including:

* Wildlife exhibition licences and display permits (conditions, issue, renewal, cancellation and appeal processes)
* Record keeping requirements
* Disposal of wildlife
* Release or escape of wildlife
* Offences
* Travelling wildlife exhibition permits.

Download Draft Wildlife (Exhibited Animals) Regulations 2010 as a PDF Draft Wildlife (Exhibited Animals) Regulations 2010
(PDF: 618 KB / 49 pages) View PDF as HTML

This is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and requires the use of Adobe Acrobat Reader. The Reader is easy to download and is free of charge.

Download Review of Wildlife Exhibition Regulations 2010 - Guide to Proposed Changes as a PDF Review of Wildlife Exhibition Regulations 2010 - Guide to Proposed Changes
(PDF: 499 KB / 3 pages) View PDF as HTML

This is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and requires the use of Adobe Acrobat Reader. The Reader is easy to download and is free of charge.

The Wildlife (Deer Farming) Regulations 2010
These Regulations will govern European fallow deer farming in Tasmania as, for the purposes of the Regulations, European fallow deer are considered wildlife. The provision of Regulations to distinguish between farm deer and wild deer remove the need for farmers to obtain permits to buy, sell, possess or kill farm deer. These Regulations will govern European fallow deer farming including:

* Notification obligations for prospective deer farmers
* Deer farm approvals and inspections
* Record keeping and marking of animals
* Actions necessary to prevent or address deer escape, including notification, recovery, destruction and forfeiture.

Download Draft Widlife (Deer Farming) Regulations 2010 as a PDF Draft Widlife (Deer Farming) Regulations 2010
(PDF: 286 KB / 14 pages) View PDF as HTML

This is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and requires the use of Adobe Acrobat Reader. The Reader is easy to download and is free of charge.

Download Review of Fallow Deer Farming Regulations 2010 - Guide to Proposed Changes as a PDF Review of Fallow Deer Farming Regulations 2010 - Guide to Proposed Changes
(PDF: 407 KB / 2 pages) View PDF as HTML

This is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and requires the use of Adobe Acrobat Reader. The Reader is easy to download and is free of charge.

Submissions
Submissions are invited from members of the public to provide comment in relation to any and all of these proposed Regulations. There is no set form for making a submission. They may be in the form of a letter, a substantial paper or a short document. Appendices and other supporting documents may be included.

Submissions should be sent to:

Post: Wildlife Regulations Review
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
P.O. Box 44
Hobart 7001
Fax: (03) 6223 8603
Email: [email protected]
Hand delivery: Wildlife Regulations Review
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
Resource Management and Conservation Division
134 Macquarie Street
Hobart
Further information
Hard copies of the proposed Regulations and other explanatory material may also be obtained from Service Tasmania outletsYou are now leaving our site. DPIPWE is not responsible for the content of the web site to which you are going. The link does not constitute any form of endorsement.

The closing date for submissions is Friday 13 August 2010.

The following presentation was made at community access on 16th July, 2010:-

Greetings. My talk today is about the treasures of the Tweed. I come as a representative of the animals who can’t speak and need people like me and others to speak for them.

I apologise for my last presentation when I spoke strongly against councillors’ decisions (calling them environmentally negligent and environmentally incompetent). The truth is every one of you has done something green and sustainable at least once – so please do more!

I would like to start by reaching out to you. It feels like there is an enormous gap between you and us. It feels like we are aliens from another planet in our way of thinking. Councillors have called us ‘morons’, ‘ratbags’, ‘two-headed’ and ‘dope smokers’ but we are just humans and, like the Na’vis in the movie Avatar, we care deeply about our environment and are increasingly distressed at the amount of development this council allows, much of it on land where threatened species live.

What happens to the animals is something I ask you to consider. For example, a bird raised from birth knows intimately every branch, every leaf, rock, hill, waterway. It has its territory that is its property. That bird knows every safe spot to hide, where to get food and water and where to sleep. When machines operated by humans come along and bulldoze the area, what happens to that bird? It is devastated. It has nowhere to live. Forced to invade another bird’s territory it will die a certain death. And it is so with every single animal. To me this is unfathomably tragic. I so wish you could feel it …

It is estimated that between 1972 and 2006 a total of 4 billion birds, mammals and reptiles died from land clearing. At the rate we are developing and overpopulating the land, in time we will have no wild species of animals left. Already 2/3rds of our species in the shire are at risk of extinction. Each death is a personal tragedy to that animal and its family.

You all have loved ones children and maybe even animal companions. It’s clear to see that animals have feelings. They mourn when their friends die, they are happy when they are having fun, they have fear when danger comes. They protect their offspring with their lives just like we do. Why wouldn’t their needs be as important as ours?

The majority of people in this shire do care about the environment and want it protected because Cr Milne who most represents environmental issues at every opportunity, received the highest number of votes in the history of this council. That proves we are not in the minority.

Councillors are the guardians of our unique ecological treasures and we would be so thrilled if you would protect this shire for a change and not develop it, especially where threatened koalas and other species live such as:-

• Kings Forest and Cobaki Lakes
• Not support car rallies through national forests and World Heritage areas
• Not try to dam Byrrill Creek which has 43 threatened species or
• Fill in natural creeks at Ozone St, Chinderah and
• Fully prosecute every developer who illegally cuts down protected trees
• Buy up land for wildlife habitat and corridors

It’s time we changed our direction away from growth and expanding populations. It’s time to put ENVIRONMENT before ECONOMY and SOCIETY as without biodiversity of fauna we cannot survive.

Next time you see the Treasures of the Tweed murals around town I hope you will hear the collective voice of the animals’ psyche calling out to you for help. They really need it.

Menkit Prince

QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR JOAN VAN LIESHOUT
"I would like to know if you personally feel that animals are more important than people".

Reply: Without biodiversity humans cannot survive so therefore humans and animals are equally important.

COMMENT FROM MAYOR WARREN POLGLASE
The Tweed Sun, July 22, 2010
"Community access is about allowing people the opportunity to talk about some issues, like the people who spoke about the IGA store and the iBar, but when you get inundated about a lot of other issues - and this is orchestrated by some people - I think it sometimes abuses the process" said Cr Polglase.

"We have the same people coming in talking about the same issues but I don't think that's what community access is all about."

"Some of the wildlife people seemed to expand on what the numbers are and what they aren't. There is a difference in opinion between various wildlife groups on numbers. When you get this sort of thing happening, as a council you start to think who is right and who is wrong and maybe both numbers are wrong. The whole system in that area is being abused."

Asked if the council would consider changing its access system, Cr Polglase said council should be looking at alternative ways of conducting community access if it meant getting meaningful outcomes.

COMMENT FROM THE TWEED SUN, July 29, 2010
A Tweed woman may have seen Avatar just a few too many times - which could explain its incredible box office takings. At a recent Tweed council community access meeting at Murwillumbah, Menkit Prince, a regular speaker on wildlife issues, compared the people of the Tweed to the Na'Vi - the tribe indigenous to Pandora in James Cameron's mega-hit. She spoke of developments destroying the shire's wildlife and fauna and called council to 'stop the destruction.' Later she was asked by councillor Joan van Lieshout whether she valued the needs of animals above humans, she replied 'They are both equal.'

RESPONSE FROM MENKIT

To Cr van Lieshout:
Asking personal questions of residents presenting to council versus questions related to the topic of discussion, seems unfair considering we are not allowed to ask any kind of question to councillors at community access!

To Mayor Polglase:
1. It's been 4 months since my last presentation. Is this abuse?
2. If I gave inaccurate information, why did you not inform me of this at the time? I would certainly like to know if anything I say is inaccurate.
3. If different wildlife groups have different figures does not mean they are all wrong.
4. The reason why I make presentations is not because I am trying to abuse the process but because something is not being addressed. Why is council not listening to us? Is this what you call a meaningful outcome, getting rid of community access?

To Tweed Sun
I am amused that you think I have seen the movie Avatar millions of times and have caused this movie to have raked in $2 billion (as if I had that much money and that much time to have watched it so many times!).
It may surprise you to know that I have seen Avatar only once. Do you think it's impossible for someone to 'get it' in one sitting just because you can't? If you were listening to my presentation you would have understood the analogy instead of writing this exaggerated piece of journalism.

Well, I certainly got some mileage out of this one!

Ed. Australians need help from the world's ecologists! Royal National Park, known to many tourists as the closest to Sydney, is the world's second-oldest National Park and Australia's first. It is also of enormous importance to conservationists and ecologists and contains an impressive range of fauna in rare habitats including coastal rainforest which has often been destroyed by early Australian development elsewhere. It is under threat through selfish and stupid adjacent overdevelopment by the growth-mad New South Wales government. Even Australia's primeminister doesn't want growth now and Sydney's expansion must be stopped. Royal National Park is of world class historic and ecological significance and it is incomprehensible and alarming that the NSW Government is allowing development to encroach.

From Greg Petty, Public Officer of the Otford Protection Society Incorporated

Wikipedia entry

Illawarra Escarpment and proposed rezoning by Wollongong City Council

Many of us here in Otford, Helensburgh, Stanwell Park and Stanwell Tops have been campaigning for years to protect this beautiful and sensitive region, and always too with the backing of groups such as the National Parks Association and the Total Environment Centre.

This land is adjacent to “Royal National Park”, Australia’s first and the worlds 2nd oldest National Park, and now being lobbied for World heritage listing, plus source of the (Class P “Pristine”) Hacking River Catchment.

Public clearly against adjacent development

We achieved 3,447 submissions last year during the exhibition period of the Wollongong DLEP and proposed rezoning of 7D land, but the 'fight' still continues, and WCC have asked for further submissions in particular specific to the different precincts of 2508.

To speed and ease requests to conserve the green belt of the escarpment to the Royal National Park and say No to overdevelopment, we have compiled a number of e-forms. Responders have a choice of general letters, a letter to 'save' the Symbio Wildlife Park precinct, the crucial Otford precinct (remaining habit corridor between Bald Hill and the Royal National Park) and an e-form for the submitter to cut 'n' paste selected key points.

If able can I please ask you to email the link/s to submissions, to your members? Please feel free to send onto ALL your “Contact List” or your local club, community group, etc. Kindly remove the previous “SEND TO” information first, the FWD in the Subject box and put your name and suburb below. Submissions close July 17, 2010 but may be extended – link will be automatically removed when submissions eventually close.

http://www.otfordeco.com/submission.php

Or for more information and photographs, and links to more e-submissions Otford Protection website http://www.otfordeco.com.au WCC's deadline for submissions is July 17, 2010

Signed by

Greg Petty - Public Officer

Otford Protection Society Incorporated

Helensburgh NSW 2508

AUSTRALIA

Phone (0407) 473 889

Follow us on Twitter - Save SYMBIO WILDLIFE PARK and ROYAL NATIONAL PARK from encroaching developers Plz e-sign

PS To find out more about this beautiful part of Helensburgh & Otford, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, Click Here

Source of illustration.

Grandiose fantasies

Grandiose fantasies about filling up a continent to create a great and powerful nation are not exclusive to Australia. Demographic hubris is alive and well in Canada too, and even now, after the loss of 20% of our best farmland to development, with more than a thousand species at risk and an immigrant population that has, over the last two decades, generated four times as much GHG emissions as the Albert Tar Sands megaproject, there are people who believe in a Big Canada concept. Irving Studin of the University of Toronto is one of them.

Five Canadians Respond to Irvin Studin’s Proposal for a Big Canada

(Sources:) http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Canada+should+100M+population+essay+says/3147990/story.html and http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Challenges+100M+populace+overwhelming/3163659/story.html

"Challenges of 100M populace overwhelming," The Ottawa Citizen, June 17, 2010

REPLIES:

Re: Canada should aim for 100M in population, June 13.

Irvin Studin's vision of Canada with a population of 100 million stirs the imagination in terms of our increasing our capacity for playing a role of importance on the world stage. Unfortunately, however, what might have been possible in Wilfrid Laurier's time a century ago is no longer realistic today.

For one thing, the ecological footprint of individual Canadians is much larger now and the environmental impact of such a massive increase in population would be overwhelming.

In terms of current immigration policies, it could also be extremely costly for Canadian taxpayers -- particularly because of our generous system of social programs that did not exist 100 years ago. It is estimated that the benefits newcomers now receive already amount to tens of billions of dollars a year more than what they pay in taxes.

A third and particularly challenging problem would be the integration into Canadian society of huge numbers of people from very different cultural backgrounds. With the connections they can now maintain with their former homelands through satellite TV, the Internet, inexpensive overseas travel, etc., assimilation of large concentrations of newcomers is increasingly problematic even today.

Nor would there be significant advantages in terms of economies of scale as a result of domestic population increases since we are now very much part of a global trading community.

Cities such as Toronto and Vancouver are already struggling to cope with rapidly increasing populations due to international migration and will hardly welcome the prospect of dealing with even faster growth.

Martin Collacott,
Vancouver
Collacott is a former Canadian ambassador.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Challenges+100M+populace+overwhelming/3163659/story.html#ixzz0rAvfb7qa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saucy double entendre

While the saucy double entendre query of whether "size matters" may produce snickers from those in that frame of mind, the proposition that Canada's population should be encouraged through immigration to grow to 100 million is no laughing matter. "Size" does matter. And the consequences are profoundly far-reaching and important.

With a global population of 6.8 billion today and over 9 billion expected by 2050, what the planet - and that includes Canada, Mr Studin - does not need is more people; quite the reverse. Relentlessly expanding human numbers place ever more demands on the earth, leading to deforestation, biodiversity loss, soil exhaustion, vanishing fisheries, and increases in
greenhouse gas emissions. Typically, conflicts that dominate media headlines are caused and/or exacerbated by these and other associated resource scarcities. Today we face unprecedented global challenges including food and water shortages, a looming energy crisis and climate change, all driven by ever-expanding population increases. In Canada environmental degradation is a sad, growing fact of life. Prime farm land is being gobbled up, traffic congestion is worsening as our cities expand, and with urban sprawl air quality is deteriorating.

"Size" does matter, Mr Studin, and what we don't need is more and more people. If anything, we need fewer, since fewer translates into fewer problems, greater social justice, a better standard of living for everyone.

Look at Sweden, envied by many for its quality of life and for its outstanding role on the world stage, whether as peace keepers, aid givers (leagues ahead of Canada) and, with a population much smaller than our own, a voice in international fora that is listened to and respected as Canada's once was. Sweden's environmental record puts ours to shame. It's not
population "size" that gives Sweden its clout, any more than it is Bangladesh's 130 million that accounts for its more modest standing on the world stage. What enables Sweden to "punch above its weight" internationally is explained by factors of quality not quantity. It is those very qualities that Mr Studin and the rest of us should be addressing and not the simplistic, fallacious notion that a larger Canada would somehow automatically become a better, more influential Canada.

Clifford Garrard
VP, Population Institute of Canada
Ottawa

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Letters Editor,

RE: Canada should aim for 100M in population, essay says, June 13

The degree to which Irvin Studin is divorced from environmental realities is breathtaking, even for an economist. If most of Canada’s vast territory were habitable, people would already be living there.
Yet satellite images of the world at night shows that most of Canada is as dark as Antarctica— because much of it is about as habitable as Antarctica. Trying to put large numbers of people into such an environment would require tremendous expenditures of energy (transport of food, heating of homes etc) and result in a concomitant increase in our greenhouse gas production.

Most newcomers to Canada settle in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, and only a handful settle outside the 12 largest urban centres. Our large cities are already bursting at the seams with increasing congestion and smog and ever more stressed infrastructure, and have trouble dealing with their own wastes. Only about 5% of Canada’s land surface is classified as dependable agricultural land. Due to the massive population increases of recent decades, urban uses now cover
14,300 square km of dependable agricultural land. How smart is it to destroy one’s own food security?

There have been at least three reports that specifically looked at population growth in Canada from an environmental perspective (Science Council of Canada Report No. 25 in 1976; a now declassified confidential report to the Privy Council in 1991 called The environment: marriage between earth and mankind; the Healey report of
1997 on the ecosystems of the Fraser River). All documented the stress that population growth is putting on Canada’s agricultural land and ecosystems. The collapse of the cod fishery and the recent spectacularly poor run of salmon in the Fraser River support their conclusions.

In terms of consumption of resources, greenhouse gas production, and stress on agricultural land and ecosystems, Canada is already overpopulated.

Sincerely,

Madeline Weld President, Population Institute of Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Letters Editor,

Re: Ian MacLeod - aim for 100 million

"At 100 million, this is among the most powerful and important countries in the world. And the world will takenotice." Phrased another way, "the sun never sets on the British Empire" or "the beginning of a 1000 yearReich".

Given the environmental and economic issues looming in this century, it is doubtful the world will take positivenotice of Canada's continuing on its current path of being the worst performer in carbon emissions of theKyoto 58 signatories save Saudi Arabia. Nor will our second worst per capita income growth in the developedworld over the past 4 decades draw much applause.

We are already taking ridicule from all sides for our worst-in-the-developed-world environmental performance andwe get singled out regularly on our poverty and productivity levels. Both of these failures are driven primarily byour policy of mass immigration, again, the highest in the world over the past 40 years.

In this century, the world will be looking to countries of whatever size which can deliver solutions notjingoistic slogans and fantasies of empire from a bygone era.

Yours truly, John Meyer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How to make Canada "Big"

Letters editor, Ottawa Citizen

So Irvin Studin believes that by becoming a nation of 100 million people through immigration, Canada would becomea big player on the world stage. (Citizen June 13/2010)
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Canada+should+100M+population+essay+says/3147990/story.html

Presently some 80 per cent of New Canadians lack the skills necessary to earn an income high enough to pay enoughtaxes to reimburse government for the services they consume. In fact, Professor Herb Grubel of Simon FraserUniversity estimated that by 2002 the cohort of immigrants who came in 1990 were imposing a staggering netcost of $18 billion a year. No doubt that figure would be much higher today.

Here's a thought. Rather than importing this fiscal burden, we take the 18 plus billion dollars that would havespent on immigration, and deploy it instead to development aid in developing countries made conditional onfamily planning. In that way we could help people where they are helped best---at home where they live, andthereby alleviate the conditions that motivate them to leave----the competition for land, water, food and otherresources made scarce by overpopulation. Imagine what clout and status such a policy would bring to Canada.Not only would we meet the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent of our GDP on foreign aid, we over-achieve itby leaps and bounds and set an example for the rest of the world. And by doing so, we would also provide neededrespite to our prime farmland and endangered species habitat that have been bulldozed at an alarming rate tobuild housing for our runaway immigrant-driven population growth--- already the highest of G8 countries. A win-win proposition all around.

Forget the demographic ego-trip, Mr Studin. That is how to make Canada big and influential.

Tim Murray VP Biodiversity First

Last year Russia banned the import of kangaroo meat because of health concerns. The European Union President is also advocating a ban on kangaroo meat, but for wildlife preservation and cruelty reasons. Australian AgForce and the Australia-Russia Business Council have got together with the Queensland government to try to reverse this situation and they have been strongly courting the Russian meat trade again. In early June the Russian Trade Minister Yuri Aleshin was toured around Western Queensland with this trade in mind. Ironically he was recorded on an ABC radio broadcast posing the question regarding the kangaroos..."but where are they?" Obviously he had not seen the 'hordes' that are so often said to exist.

Last year I visited a kangaroo rehabilitation center in Queensland where orphans are raised by the remarkable Anne Maree Dineen. I was struck by how small the kangaroos there were compared to those I see on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria. Anne-Maree told me that the average life-span of a kangaroo in Queensland is about 2 years, since so many are shot. The big ones are shot first, then the trade goes after the little ones. Their normal life-expectancy can be 20 years plus under other conditions. I also noticed the extreme nervousness and vigilance of these small kangaroos there, which was also in contrast to those in relatively safe conditions in Victoria - albeit the Victorian ones are being starved out by development, harassed by farmers and killed on roads there, as safe havens go under tarmac.

What immoral hypocrisy we have in Australian Government when one department legitimises mass kangaroo slaughter as a 'kangaroo industry' and promotes 'kangaroo harvesting', while another department promotes the kangaroo as its 'hopping icon.'

Tourism Australia's latest marketing campaign claims to be based on the '#FF0000">core truth'.
Well how can it be truthful? Tourism Australia needs to drop the kangaroo logo from its advertising while the slaughter continues or else drop its core truth campaign.

Kangaroos are indeed what is 'unique and special' about Australia. It is immoral to slaughter wildlife. It is hypocritical to promote wildlife values while also promoting its slaughter.

One arm of Australian Government condones kangaroo mass slaughter

What immoral hypocrisy when one arm of the Australian Government (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) legitimises kangaroos wildlife slaughter as a 'kangaroo industry' and promotes 'kangaroo harvesting' on the backward colonial excuse that it 'provides jobs'. The Department claims this wildlife trade provides "over 4000 jobs mostly in rural and remote areas."

It claims "of the kangaroos that it allows to be slaughtered 60% of kangaroos are sold as pet meat "mostly for the domestic market." The remainder is exported for human consumption earning $27 million and 30% of kangaroo skins are used domestically with the rest exported as hide, skin and leather worth around $22 million."

The Australian Department of Foreign and Affairs and Trade) likewise advocates kangaroo commercial slaughter, which it euphemistically labels as 'harvesting.' It immorally tries to justify this wildlife slaughter as "due to the introduction of European farming methods." It boasts that "today kangaroo meat and skins are exported all over the world"..the meat exported "to more than 55 countries." - mainly the European Union and Russian markets. As for Kangaroo skins it argues ..."it is ideal for use in the manufacture of high-quality leather goods, including footwear. Because of kangaroo leather’s high tensile strength, it is also suitable for the manufacture of sporting footwear.

---

Another arm of Australian Government promotes the kangaroo as its 'hopping icon'

Meanwhile, another arm of our Federal Government (Tourism Australia) has the tenacity to adopt the kangaroo as its logo for its national tourism campaign and refer to the kangaroo as 'a hopping icon'?

Tourism Australia's corporate marketing brochure boasts the new campaign is "based on the '#FF0000">core truth' ...that people travel to experience difference" and so the campaign’s advertising is focused on what is unique and special about Australia.

The campaign research found that the Australian tourism industry said to "show the icons, show the animals, make it fun and friendly."

Australia's tourism industry said 'show the animals, make it fun and friendly'

---

'Core Truth' campaign under scrutiny

But how can we show Australian animals and at the same time condone killing them by the thousands?

How can the kangaroo be an icon for Tourism Australia when 100 of them were slaughtered under approval by the Department of Environment and Conservation on 5th May 2010 at Preston Beach Golf Club near Mandurah, Western Australia to make way for a golf course development?

A kangaroo joey decapitated by authorities to make way for Prestons Golf Club, Perth

How can the kangaroo be an icon for Tourism Australia when 4000 of them were slaughtered at Belconnen and Majura, near Canberra in 2009 to make way or housing development?

Part of the Fitzgibbon Massacre at Majura and Belconnen outside Canberra 19th May 2009

Australian Tourism can't have its icon and eat it!...not if it is beholden to the '#FF0000">core truth'.

Tiger Quoll
Snowy River 3885
Australia

Kangaroos grazing at Majura outside Canberra before the mass slaughter

---

Further Reading

Majura Kangaroo Story

Agforce calling for juvenile kangaroos on the menu

Preston Beach Kangaroo Cull

Yet another kangaroo cruelty case

Kangaroo Meat - confessions of a wildlife serial killer

The Kangaroo Industry: Weapon of Choice

Tourism Australia's tormented kangaroo exhibit in Beverley Hills

Kangaroo: The Other Grey Meat

Dame Judi Dench stands up for kangaroos - UK and EU

Our State government appears to be on a campaign to eradicate native wildlife from Victoria, especially kangaroos

Kangaroo Meat Export - ban it and follow the European Parliament's lead on fur seal products!

New Sustainability report criticises kangaroo culling in ACT - says kangaroos protect land from fire

National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Commercial Purposes

A proposed 380 lot subdivision opposite the Serendip Sanctuary in Lara, Victoria, will have devastating consequences on the area by destroying the natural habit, risking the welfare of animal and bird life, increase the chances of flooding and put added pressure on local infrastructure already at breaking point.

Lara's Serendip Sanctuary is under threat from developers

 

A proposed 380 lot subdivision opposite the Serendip Sanctuary in Lara, Victoria , will have devastating consequences on the area by destroying the natural habit and risking the well-being of animal and bird life, increase the chances of flooding and put added pressure on local infrastructure already at breaking point.

To be known as Sanctuary Views, the 38ha development area bounded by Caddys Lane, Windemere Rd, Serendip Creek and Flinders Ave, has been earmarked in a City of Greater Geelong plan for rezoning from Rural Living to Residential 1 to make way for the development proposed by L. Bisinella Developments.

Melbourne's malignant urban sprawl is threatening the wildlife sanctuary and the disease of bitumen and concrete to further land speculation profits for developers. The collusion between our State Labor government and land developers has never been so mutually fruitful and so destructive.

Flood area

Serendip Creek links into Hovells Creek that flows into the RAMSAR listed Limeburners Bay.  Urban pollution and increased storm water from this development could also increase the likelihood of downstream flooding to the township of Lara and St Laurence Park.
Former Shire of Corio councillor Brian Faithfull has witnessed flooding first-hand on a number of occasions.
Serendip Creek Reserve Lara 2004 Flood Photos YouTube

 

Serendip Wildlife Sanctuary – history and achievements

This sanctuary supports 171 recorded bird species, with many listed as vulnerable or near-vulnerable. Specially designed bird hides enable you to see some of the 150 species of birds which breed at or visit Serendip Sanctuary. The 227 hectare sanctuary, an excellent example of the open grassy woodlands and wetlands of the volcanic Western Plains, is the perfect place to learn about and experience birdlife and wetlands ecology.

In 1856 the property of Lara, which included the area now occupied by Serendip, was sold by the Crown at auction. Since then, the property has been re-sold numerous times and used for everything from farming and sheep studs to a health resort for alcoholics (from 1907 to 1930). It was utilised as a research station for waterfowl and other native animals by the then Fisheries and Wildlife Department. A bird banding program for ducks conducted by Fisheries and Wildlife was so successful that, in 1959, the State repurchased the property with a view to further developing the site as a Wildlife Research Station.

In 1987, the government decided to re-develop the property into a wetlands education centre, with the aim of bringing the wetlands and wildlife of the Western Plains to the people.

The re-developments included the construction of an information centre, re-furbishment of existing buildings and the display pond, creation of walking trails, building of bird hides and covered walkways, marshland construction and installation of displays and educational material.

(Photo: red neck wallaby - wikimedia commons).

Serendip also provides habitat for a variety of mammal species including Eastern Grey Kangaroos, Red-necked Wallabies, Swamp Wallabies, Echidnas, a limited number of Koala and the Pademelon , now extinct in the wild in Victoria.

(Photo: swamp wallaby - wikimedia commons).

A captive breeding program at Serendip Sanctuary near Geelong from the 1960s to the early 1990s resulted in the successful reintroduction of hundreds of birds to south-western Victoria, and large flocks of spotted magpie geese have been seen in parts of this region, such as near Port Fairy.

(Photo: Pandemelon - wikimedia commons).

Serendip Sanctuary, opened to the public in 1991, is now managed by Parks Victoria and receives support from The Alcoa Landcare Project and Friends groups. Through their cultural traditions, Aboriginal people maintain their connection to their ancestral lands and waters.

Since 1959 Serendip has re-created a range of habitats which has seen the number of animal species increase from 40 (with few breeding) to over 150 today (with over 60 breeding). The Sanctuary has also demonstrated the compatibility of farming and wildlife.
(Photo:Australian Bustard - wikimedia commons).

Australian Bustards and Bush Thick-knees are two rare Victorian birds which were once common on the Western Plains and now find a protected home at Serendip. Brolgas (Grus rubicundus) and Australian Bustards (Ardeotis australis) were chosen for the captive breeding program at Serendip, designed to rehabilitate species that have become rare or extinct on the Western Plains. The success of the captive breeding program has received international recognition.

(Photo: Bush thick-knees - wikimedia commons).

Serendip has many different wetland types, each with their own characteristics.

(Photo:Brolgas - wikimedia commons).

TLC GROUP SERENDIP & LARA UNDER FURTHER THREAT

TLC web page

Residents fear a proposed development at Caddy's Rd, Lara, will endanger animals and the environmental integrity of the sanctuary if it goes ahead.

The group fears that Mr Bisinella’s subdivision would create a dangerous precedent of inappropriate urban sprawl and destroy the town’s rural character.

The 380-lot subdivision of over 38ha is adjacent to Serendip Sanctuary, and this means threats of increased traffic, noises, pollution, dogs, and dangers for kangaroos and other wildlife crossing over to graze. The development will impact on the peace and security of this former farmland that has been lovingly restored close to the pristine condition it would have been before European settlement. 

The recreated wetlands may be one of the few that survive as a safe place for our waterbirds, considering their numbers are so low and that shooters are still allowed to kill them for entertainment!

Melbourne's green "lungs" of grasslands, natural vegetation, trees and wildlife are already being threatened by brick and concrete developments, so readily approved by our (Respect Agenda?) planning minister.

Edge effect

Edge effect is used to describe the negative impacts of things like wind, fire, cattle grazing and even insect damage, on vegetation growing at the edges of forests.

Edges – their effect on vegetation and wildlife Land for Wildlife

Graphical models show that habitat islands of different size have shape-specific ratios of perimeter to area. The high diversity of plants and animals associated with edges (compared to interiors) of remnant vegetation became the edge effect principle, a basic concept of wildlife management ecology (Yahner, 1988), (Angelstam, 1992), although the nature and level of impacts of interactions causing such edge effects were not fully understood.

Habitat fragmentation is a major focus for conservation in Australia due primarily to the increasingly fragmented nature of the landscape. An important aspect of fragmentation is induced or anthropogenic edge effects, which are known to influence ecological function heavily in many systems.

Habitat fragmentation is regarded as one of the greatest threats to biodiversity globally. In the last 200 years the Australian landscape has been altered at exponential rates, and in some regions, less than 10% of original native vegetation cover remains and, generally, these remnants are heavily fragmented (Bennett 2003).

Bird species are likely to be killed while looking for seeds or carrion. Reptiles using the roads for basking cannot be excluded by fences. Other animals are likely to be killed during natural movement patterns.

Many wildlife species rely on the seclusion of undisturbed habitat in order to breed successfully. For example, the Wedge-tailed Eagle has been known to abandon its nest due to disturbance

Human-induced habitat edges have been linked with a number of changes in ecosystem structure, with the most obvious relating to the decline of native species, but often less obvious abiotic changes such as increased daytime temperatures and evaporation rates, increased nutrient loads, greater wind velocities and altered fire regimes.

Fragmented & the edge effect is a big management problem in the Remnant native vegetation in the Port Phillip & Westernport CMA region (VEAC, 2009). Could also cause weed spread. Weed seeds are spread by wind, water, animals, people, vehicles, soil, livestock and in agricultural products.

Edges are prone to many disturbances such as chemical and fertiliser drift from adjacent farmland, trampling and grazing by stock, fire escaping into habitat areas, recreational disturbance and littering.

Ecological Assessment Guidelines:(Brisbane City Council)
Toohey Forest in Brisbane - “an island in Suburbia” example of edge effect

Toohey Forest in Brisbane, described as ‘An Island in Suburbia’ by Carla Catterall (1987), is a perfect example of how edge effects, due to human induced disturbances, have altered the vegetation, fauna and microclimatic regime of this community. It has been found that species diversity and numbers of individuals in Toohey Forest has steadily declined due to urban encroachment.

Solar radiation, humidity, air temperature, wind speed and soil temperature may all be altered along edges. This can have a dramatic impact on the vegetation and, ultimately, the wildlife. Many birds, such as parrots and cockatoos, will use edges for perching and nesting. Kangaroos and wallabies feed and move out along edges. Because edges are a meeting place between adjacent habitats, they are often rich in species (eg mixing of forest species, edge species and farmland species). Also, edges, especially where there is a scattered open ‘buffer’ type area, are often good places to see and experience wildlife.

This will make them vulnerable from public interference, introduced animals and traffic. Pest animals such as foxes, cats and dogs tend to move and harbour along roads, tracks and cleared areas adjacent to or in bush areas.

Recommendations
Edge effects and other indirect impacts of development on ecological features and processes within or adjacent to the site should be identified, avoided or mitigated by best practice planning and design measures. Acceptable measures include, but are not limited, to:

retaining bushland habitat areas in a compact form, eg. roughly circular or rectangular, to minimise perimeter to area ratios.

creating or retaining a buffer or separation area incorporating ecologically compatible activities adjacent to the habitat area, eg. gardens, parkland, sporting fields or low density housing (large blocks with native vegetation)

40 metres from the maximum water level of a freshwater wetland

a distance from bushland habitat areas which is equal to the distance to which edge effects are known or likely to penetrate ( a large buffer zone preserved)

adequately managing and treating stormwater runoff from the development site to control nutrient and sediment loads and outlet velocities

setting back residential, industrial, commercial or special purpose centre development at least 40 metres from the maximum water level of a freshwater wetland

seeking cooperative management/covenants with adjacent landowners to minimise threats or disturbances.

Human impacts- animal cruelty and vandalism

In 2007, kangaroos were starving and “culled” because they had become trapped in the sanctuary by surrounding residential properties. Proper wildlife corridors could and should be established from the sanctuary so that kangaroos can range between the park and the You Yangs.

Rangers, in June 2009, were being forced to conduct dawn death patrols around Lara's Serendip Sanctuary to clear dead kangaroos from the road. A zoology student believes the deaths can be blamed on inadequate fences at the Parks Victoria sanctuary, but Parks Victoria said increased traffic posed the greatest danger to the animals. Former Lara resident Caroline Ellis, an honours student at Melbourne University, told the Geelong Advertiser that the Department of Sustainability and Environment had guidelines for fencing wildlife. Ms Ellis, said she had recently witnessed an early-morning road kill patrol on the roads around the park and believed it was inevitable a fatal accident would be recorded in the area.

Park rangers labelled as disgraceful the brazen theft of an
endangered chick from Lara's Serendip Sanctuary. (November 2007) The six-week-old bush thick-knee was snatched  by a visitor to the sanctuary. Ranger Mick Smith arrived on Saturday morning to find the bird missing and its twin clutch-mate wandering by itself. What would prevent more vandalism and stealing of wildlife?

Four kangaroos were killed after shots were fired through Serendip Sanctuary's fence on Friday night in June 2007. One of the animals was shot in the rear and another in the neck, meaning that they would have suffered before dying.

Mr Helman, Serendip Sanctuary team leader, said the shots were fired through the fence from the road which was foolish because for all the person firing the shots knew, there could have been a sanctuary worker in the firing line on the other side.

Bannockburn locals were left horrified in April 2007 when three kangaroos were found bashed to death.
It's believed the kangaroos had been repeatedly bashed in the head. Two joeys were found alive in two of the marsupials' pouches.

How can our protected wildlife be safe with more people in the area, and more potential intruders and sadistic attacks?

Road Kill

The new proposed subdivision of of the land opposite will only increase the road kill. The roos cross into the Serendip Creek Reserve to feed and also feed in the adjoining paddocks. So more road kills should be expected, and more congestion at the Lara Primary School thanks to Bisenslla Developments.

How is our wildlife supposed to cope with the extra traffic?

Ecological and wildlife costs of population growth

This rezoning from rural to residential land opposite the “sanctuary” is simply madness and will negatively impact on the integrity of the sanctuary and the safety of the wildlife - and drivers. It seems that wildlife losses and fatalities, and ecological systems to preserve them, are simply collateral costs of population growth and urban sprawl.

It is absolutely absurd to subdivide the land opposite Serendip. So much work has been invested in restoring and creating habitats and ecosystems, and so much could be compromised and the integrity of the place destroyed. The area is not suitable for many reasons. Lara was once a rural town, but all council think about is incoming rates and nothing more! It is all about growth for growth's sake, and revenue collection, not about the land's integrity, protecting of even threatened species, or social cohesion and opinion.

Contacts to raise your objections:
Department of Sustainability and Environment
[email protected]

City of Greater Geelong Mayor Cr John Mitchell
online form
or
The City of Greater Geelong's postal address is:
PO Box 104, Geelong, Vic 3220

Planning Minister Mr Justin Madden
[email protected]

References:
Bennett, A.F., 2003. Habitat fragmentation. In Ecology:
An Australian Perspective, P. Attiwill & B. Wilson, eds, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 444–456.

R.H. Yahner. "Changes in wildlife communities near edges". Conservation Biology, 2(4):333-339, 1988

P. Angelstam. "Conservation of communities - the importance of edges, surroundings and landscape mosaic structure". L. Hansson, editor. Ecological Principles of Nature Conservation Elsevier Applied Science, London and New York, pp. 9-70, 1992.

Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) Remnant Native Vegetation Investigation, May 2009

EDGES – THEIR EFFECT ON VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE, Land for Wildlife Note No. 4 November1999, Author: Lyndall Rowley, Robyn Edwards, Paul Kelly
Adapted by: Kaye Cavanagh for the Land for Wildlife program South-east Queensland

An Island in suburbia : the natural and social history of Toohey Forest / edited by C.P. Catterall and C.J. Wallace, 1987

The Red Kangaroo and Emu that support the shield are the official animal emblems of the nation. They owe this recognition to the fact that they are native Australian fauna (found only on this continent).

...and then we go and massacre them.

The 2008 Belconnen Massacre - lest we forget

We are reminded of the brutal belconnen massacre of 500 kangaroos yesterday two years ago on 19th May 2008, followed shortly afterwards with another 4000 or so kangaroos massacred at the Majura Army training area. "Kevin Rudd or Environment Minister Peter Garrett declined to stop the killings. It was supported by the RSPCA's Micheal Linke." ['Two years since the shameful Belconnen slaughter in Canberra']

Then around this time last year Australia's Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon MP, approved a similar kangaroo massacre at the same place on Saturday, 9th May 2009. [Fitzgibbon's Massacre - 9th May 2009]

These wildlife massacres reflect a prevaling backward colonial attitude by our government towards native animals. Native animals were regarded as vermin by early colonists. This attitude prevails.

---

Labor's Big Ecological Lie

At the time, outright propaganda lies were told by government officials and politicians that the kangaroos were starving and the kangaroos threatening native grassland and three threatened species on the site, the striped legless lizards, golden sun moths and Ginninderra peppercress. Read More

Such propaganda is right out of Joseph Goebbles "Big Lie" technique based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses. Goebbles' propaganda attacks on the Jewish population culminated in the Kristallnacht assault of 1938, an open and unrestrained pogrom unleashed by the Nazis all across Germany, in which scores of synagogues were burned and hundreds of Jews were assaulted and murdered. [Source]

The truth at Belconnen is that the government wanted new housing estates to go up where the kangaroos lived, so they slaughtered the kangaroos. Simple and brutal as that.

The Truth about the 2008 Belconnen Massacre

---

Colonist Australia - a history of slaughtering native Australians

The truth across all of Australia through its colonial history right up to recent times, is the government wanted the land where Aborigines lived, so they slaughtered the Aborigines. Simple and brutal as that. Today's 21st century official slaughter of Australian native animals is no different to the official slaughter of Australian native people by European colonists, who treated Aboriginal people as vermin.

The following massacres are shocking testament. Such truths of Australian history remains excluded from the Australian school curriculum. Such truths of Australian ecological present remain excluded from the Australian school curriculum.

[List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians]

1790 Botany Bay Genocide In December, Governor Arthur Phillip issued an order for "a party...of two captains, two subalterns and forty privates, with a proper number of non-commissioned officers from the garrison...to bring in six of those natives who reside near the head of Botany Bay; or, if that number shall be found impracticable, to put that number to death".

1824 Bathurst Massacre Following the killing of seven Europeans by Aboriginal people around Bathurst, New South Wales, martial law was declared and many Aboriginal people were killed.

1828 Cape Grim Massacre On 10th February in the North west of Van Diemen's Land, now known as Tasmania, four shepherds with musket guns ambushed over 30 Tasmanian Aborigines from the Pennemukeer band from Cape Grim, killing 30 and throwing their bodies over a 60 metre cliff into the sea.

1830 Fremantle Punishment Raid The first official 'punishment raid' on Aboriginal people in Western Australia, led by Captain Irwin took place in May 1830. A detachment of soldiers led by Irwin attacked an Aboriginal encampment north of Fremantle in the belief that it contained men who had 'broken into and plundered the house of a man called Paton' and killed some poultry. Paton had called together a number of settlers who, armed with muskets, set after the Aborigines and came upon them not far from the home. 'The tall savage who appeared the Chief showed unequivocal gestures of defiance and contempt' and was accordingly shot. Irwin stated, "This daring and hostile conduct of the natives induced me to seize the opportunity to make them sensible to our superiority, by showing how severely we could retaliate their aggression." In actions that followed over the next few days, more Aborigines were killed and wounded.

1833-34 Convincing Ground Massacre of Gunditjmara On the shore near Portland, Victoria was one of the largest recorded massacres in Victoria. Whalers and the local Kilcarer Gunditjmara people disputed rights to a beached whale carcass.

1834: Battle of Pinjarra In Pinjarra Western Australia, official records state 14 Aboriginal people were killed, but other accounts put the figure much higher.

1838 Myall Creek Massacre 10 June: 28 people killed at Myall Creek near Inverell, New South Wales. This was the first Aboriginal massacre for which European settlers were successfully convicted. Several colonists had previously been found not guilty by juries despite the weight of evidence and one colonist found guilty had been pardoned when his case was referred to Britain for sentencing. Eleven men were charged with murder but were initially acquitted by a jury. On the orders of the Governor, a new trial was held using the same evidence and seven of the eleven men were found guilty of the murder of one Aboriginal child and hanged. The successful prosecutions resulted in pacts of silence becoming a common practice to avoid sufficient evidence becoming available for future prosecutions. Many large scale massacres were to go unpunished due to this practice.

1838 Waterloo Creek Massacre A Sydney mounted police detachment attacked an encampment of Kamilaroi people at a place called Waterloo Creek in remote bushland.

1838 Faithfull Massacre Benalla -In April of that year a party of some 18 men, in the employ of George Faithful and William Faithfull, were searching out new land to the south of Wangaratta. Then, in the vicinity of, or possibly on, the present townsite of Benalla, it is alleged that a large number of Aborigines attacked the party's camp. At least one Koori and somewhere between eight and thirteen Europeans died in what became known as the Faithfull Massacre. Local reprisals lasted a number of years, resulting in the deaths of up to 100 Aborigines. The reason for the attack is unclear although some sources claim that the men took shots at local Aborigines and generally provoked them.[15] It also seems they were camping on a hunting ground

Additional murders of these people occurred at Warangaratta on the Ovens River, at Murchison (led by the native police under Dana and in the company of the young Edward Curr, who could not bring himself to discuss what he witnessed there other than to say he took issue with the official reports) Other incidents were recorded Mitchelton and Toolamba.

This "hunting ground" would have been a ceremonial ground probably called a 'Kangaroo ground'. Hunting grounds were all over so not something that would instigate an attack. The colonial government decided to "open up" the lands south of Yass after the Faithful Massacre and bring them under British rule. This was as much to try and protect the Aboriginal people from reprisals as to open up new lands for the colonists. The Aboriginal people were (supposedly) protected under British law.

1839 Campaspe Plains Massacre At Campaspe Creek, Central Victoria in May-June saw the genocidal slaughter of the Daung Wurrung and Dja Dja Wurrung people.

Mid 1839 Murdering Gully Massacre Near Camperdown, Victoria saw the genocidal "wiping out" of the Tarnbeere Gundidj clan of the Djargurd Wurrung people.

1830s—1840s Wiradjuri Wars Clashes between European settlers and Wiradjuri were very violent, particularly around the Murrumbidgee. The loss of fishing grounds and significant sites and the killing of Aboriginal people was retaliated through attacks with spears on cattle and stockmen. In the 1850s there were still corroborees around Mudgee but there were fewer clashes. Known ceremony continued at the Murrumbidgee into the 1890s. European settlement had taken hold and the Aboriginal population was in temporary decline.

1865 The La Grange Expedition was a search expedition carried out in the vicinity of La Grange Bay in the Kimberley region of Western Australia led by Maitland Brown that led to the death of up to 20 Aboriginal people. The expedition has been celebrated with the Explorers' Monument in Fremantle, Western Australia.

1868 Flying Foam Massacre - Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia. Following the killing of two police and two settlers by local Yaburara people, two parties of settlers from the Roebourne area, led by prominent pastoralists Alexander McRae and John Withnell, killed an unknown number of Yaburara. Estimates of the number of dead range from 20 to 150.

1874 Barrow Creek Massacre - February (NT): Mounted Constable Samuel Gason arrived at Barrow Creek and a police station was opened. Eight days later a group of Kaytetye men attacked the station, either in retaliation for treatment of Kaytetye women, the closing off of their only water source, or both. Two white men were killed and one wounded. Samuel Gason mounted a large police hunt against the Kaytetye resulting in the killing of many Aboriginal men, women and children - some say up to 90. Skull Creek takes its name from the bleached bones found there long after.

1876 Goulbolba Hill Massacre In Central Queensland thre was a large massacre involving men, women and children. This was the result of settlers pushing Aboriginal people out of their hunting grounds and the Aboriginals being forced to hunt livestock for food. A party of Native Police was sent to "disperse" this group of Aboriginals. This led to the deaths of over 200 Aboriginal people including all the women and children.

1880s-90s Florida Station Massacre In Arnhem Land a series of skirmishes and "wars" between Yolngu and whites occurred. There were several reported massacres at Florida Station. Richard Trudgen also writes of several massacres in this area, including an incident where Yolngu were fed poisoned horsemeat after they killed and ate some cattle (under their law, it was their land and they had an inalienable right to eat animals on their land). Many people died as a result of that incident. Trudgen also talks of a massacre ten years later after some Yolngu took a small amount of barbed wire from a huge roll to build fishing spears. Men, women and children were chased by mounted police and men from the Eastern and African Cold Storage Company and shot.

1884 Battle Mountain Massacre 200 Kalkadoon people killed near Mount Isa, Queensland after a Chinese shepherd had been murdered.

1887 Halls Creek Genocides In the Kimberly, colonist Mary Durack suggests there was a conspiracy of silence about the massacres of Djara, Konejandi and Walmadjari peoples about attacks on Aborigines by white gold-miners, Aboriginal reprisals and consequent massacres at this time. John Durack was speared, which led to a local massacre in the Kimberley.

1890 Speewah Massacre In Queensland early settler, John Atherton, took revenge on the Djabugay by sending in native troopers to avenge the killing of a bullock. Other unconfirmed reports of similar atrocities occurred locally.

1890-1920 'The Killing Times' - East Kimberleys: About half of the Kimberley Aboriginal people massacred as a result of a number of reprisals for cattle spearing, and payback killings of European settlers.

1906-7 Canning Stock Route Massacre : an unrecorded number of Aboriginal men and women were raped and massacred when Mardu people were captured and tortured to serve as 'guides' and reveal the sources of water in the area after being 'run down' by men on horseback, restrained by heavy chains 24 hours a day, and tied to trees at night. In retaliation for this treatment, plus the party's interference with traditional wells, and the theft of cultural artefacts, Aborigines destroyed some of Canning's wells, and stole from and occasionally killed white travellers. A Royal Commission in 1908, exonerated Canning, after an appearance by Kimberley Explorer and Lord Mayor of Perth, Alexander Forrest claimed that all explorers had acted in such a fashion.

1915 Mistake Creek Masacre Seven Kija people were alleged to have been killed by men under the control of a Constable Rhatigan, at Mistake Creek, East Kimberley. The massacre is supposed to be in reprisal for allegedly killing Rhatigan's cow, however the cow is claimed to have been found alive after the massacre had already taken place. Rhatigan was arrested for wilful murder apparently due to the fact that the killers were riding horses which belonged to him, but the charges were dropped, for lack of evidence that he was personally involved.

1918 Bentinck Island Massacre In 1918 part of the Mornington Island group, Bentinck Island was home to the Kaiadilt clan of just over 100 people. In 1911 a man by the name of McKenzie (other names unknown) was given a government lease for nearby Sweers Island that also covered the eastern portion of the much larger Bentinck Island. Arriving on Bentinck with an Aboriginal woman and a flock of sheep, he built a hut near the Kurumbali estuary. Although the Kaiadilt avoided contact and refrained from approaching McKenzie's property he is alleged to have often explored the island, shooting any males he found while raping the women.

In 1918 McKenzie organised a hunt with an unknown number of settlers from the mainland and beginning from the northern tip of the island herded the Indigenous inhabitants to the beach on its southern shore. The majority of the Kaiadilt fled into the sea where those that were not shot from the shore drowned. Those that tried to escape along the beach were hunted down and shot with the exception of a small number who reached nearby mangroves where the settlers horses could not follow. Several young women were raped on the beach, then held prisoner in McKenzie's hut for three days before being released.

1924 Bedford Downs Massacre a group of Kija or Gija men were jailed for spearing a bullock. On release from jail they had to walk the 200 kilometres back to Bedford Downs, where they were set to work to cut the wood that was later used to burn their bodies. Once the work was finished they were fed Strychnine, and the bodies were burned.

1926 Forrest River Massacre In the East Kimberleys in May 1926, Fred Hay, a pastoralist, was speared and killed by an Aboriginal man, Lumbia. A police patrol led by Constables James St Jack and Denis Regan left Wyndham on June 1, to hunt for the killer, and in the first week of July, Lumbia, the accused man, was brought into Wyndham. In the months that followed rumours circulated of a massacre by the police party. The Rev. Ernest Gribble of Forrest River Mission (later Oombulgurri) alleged that 30 people had been killed by the police party. A Royal Commission, conducted by G. T. Wood sent an evidence-gathering party and heard evidence regarding Gribble's allegations. The Royal Commission found that 11 people had been massacred and the bodies burned.

1928 Coniston Massacre - A WW1 veteran shot 32 Aborigines at Coniston in the Northern Territory after a white dingo trapper and station owner were attacked by Aborigines.

Lest we forget.

Some claim kangaroo meat is 'green'. Some even claim killing kangaroos is 'better' for Australia's environment. So what if Australian farmers of lamb, beef, pork and chicken transitioned to kangaroo?

To this author it is like employing Ivan Milat to skin platypus for cheap token tourist purses.

Personal bias aside, Australia's Federal Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, has highlighted the flawed presumptions of Australia's roo trade as unviable.

The following extracts are taken from Sydney Morling Herald's Jacob Saulwick in his article 'Henry doubts viability of roo harvesting' of 13-Mar-10:

Environment East Gippsland's

Inaugural Melbourne Meeting.

6pm Wednesday 12th of May.
2nd Floor, Kindness House,
288 Brunswick St, FITZROY.

Please RSVP to [email protected]

Environment East Gippsland is to hold its inaugural Melbourne meeting next week. 6pm Wednesday 12th of May, 2nd Floor, Kindness House, 288 Brunswick St, between Victoria St and Johnston St. We’ve been planning this since the Easter Ecology Camp so come join in with your fellow tree huggers.
Facilitator/s, minute taker appointed
Introductions & Updates.
Supreme Court Case - Judgement Day.
Promoting the forests solution in the climate and water debates.
Media stories for Melbourne.
Local papers or MX style stories.
Stories that connect Melbourne communities and forests
Call for a 40% tax on logging companies profits as well?
Letter writing -
Your local pollies
State and Federal Ministers
Your power company – would they sell incinerated owls with their electricity?
Young’ns for Old Growth
DVD production and/or YouTube clip – forests and climate etc
RAW Files – Photoshop work.
Fundraising ideas –
Card sales – Christmas retailers
Art show and auction
Brown Mt Wine - see below
community benefit card
Stalls and Events
eBay auctions or garage sale
Skills and resources list
Volunteers needed.
Light nibblies supplied but feel free to bring a dip or a couple of tomatoes.
Please RSVP to [email protected]

Photos of Acacia and Lily kangaroos are by Brett Clifton

A professional review of the ACT Kangaroo Management Plan by Professor Steve Garlick MCom (Econ), PhD, FAUCEA

Summary:

The ACT Kangaroo Management Plan significantly, and disturbingly, fails society, the economy and the environment in the ACT and its contiguous region in numerous ways. In many respects it is a dishonest, unscientific, inconsistent, biased and unethical report that perpetuates ignorance of the place of humans in the natural landscape and fosters a culture of disrespect and harm.

From a societal and learning perspective the Plan:

• seeks to widen the physical and psychological separation between humans and nature;
• condones animal cruelty as a management goal;
• seeks to put total control over the general public’s common good assets in the hands of the ACT Government;
• incites the use of firearms and violence as a means of solving perceived environmental problems;
• ignores the emotional distress inflicted on sections of the community by its proposals;
• suggests no place for an education program to enhance our knowledge of a creative eco-literacy that fosters hope rather than destruction;
• offers little in the way of sympathetic urban planning; skates over occupational health matters;
• undervalues economic implications; and disregards international opinion and concerns.

From an environmental perspective the Plan:

• fails to provide an ecological end-point as a goal for its recommended actions against the kangaroo;
• fails to identify any integrated ecological monitoring framework to ensure continuous improvement in ecology over time;
• disregards the metaphysical aspects of the landscape and its importance for Indigenous Australians and others who respect and wish to connect with this ancient and unique land and its natural inhabitants.

From a scientific perspective the Plan:

• disregards research that demonstrates that kangaroo killing is a short-term and ineffective instrument;
• ignores evidence that successful kangaroo translocations from difficult and unsafe urban and peri-urban areas have been carried out;
• accepts research from other regional locations as explanatory of the often argued to be ‘unique’ local grassland systems, because there is no professionally-recognised local science on the mutual dependence of kangaroos and grasslands;
• relies on survey estimates of kangaroo numbers that are almost certainly wildly inaccurate;
• bases its research conclusions on ‘association’ and the circumstantial rather than on causality;
• erroneously refers to the research of others, such as in relation to the connection between road accidents and kangaroo populations;
• is inconsistent with other conclusions its representatives have stated in other public fora, particularly in the area of ‘research’ on kangaroo movement;
• assumes the kangaroo provides no net positive benefit to the landscape without any evidence to support this;
• provides resident survey results that are distorted by their dependence on questions based on incomplete information.

From an economic perspective the Plan:

• does not undertake any formal cost/ benefit analysis and conveniently downplays the tourism potential of kangaroos, despite the considerable national and international evidence that highlights the significance of wildlife as a global tourism competitive advantage;
• dangerously further concentrates the dependence of the ACT economy and its budget bottom line on land development (and therefore habitat destruction) for housing and commercial expansion;
• further diminishes any ‘points of difference’ Canberra might have had globally as a medium-sized city existing in harmony with its natural environment, and is consistent with steering the national capital in a direction that is no different to the ugliness of other urban sprawl and motor vehicle-dominated cities.

Key findings:

The draft ACT Kangaroo Management Plan significantly, disturbingly and dishonestly, fails society, economy and the environment in the ACT and its contiguous region in the following ways:

Failures for Society and Economy:

1. The Plan seeks to widen the gap between humans and nature by promoting further physical and psychological separation.

Increased urban concentration, rural subdivision and rapid transit highways in the ACT and surrounding rural areas have increased the psychological and physical distance between humans and wildlife. Human habitation in the ACT is becoming more and more estranged from nature, and fewer ACT residents have regular, if any, direct contact with the indigenous wildlife of the region. The result of this is that people do not have the ability to observe and admire, but rather see all forms of wildlife, particularly if large or poisonous, as threatening, and want them removed. Such behaviour is not conducive to any notion of ‘bush capital’, respect for ‘otherness’, or to a healthy and sane outlook on life. Similarly, any international visitors who wish to see kangaroos in the ACT are required to make the half-day journey to the Tidbinbilla ‘Nature Reserve’ (where kangaroos are also ‘culled’)for this experience. Various tourism studies of Tidbinbilla remark on this disadvantage.

2.

The Plan fails to honestly portray the welfare aspects associated with its recommended actions to reduce kangaroo numbers. It therefore condones animal cruelty.

The myth that a single gunshot to the head of a healthy kangaroo is humane animal welfare needs to be rejected outright. Even if we accept the unrealistic assumption that a kangaroo shooter will be one hundred per cent accurate, what actually happens in practice is more than enough to convince us that kangaroo shooting is inherently cruel. The report: A Shot in the Dark, by Dr Dror Ben-Ami dispels the myth of kangaroo shooter accuracy.

When its mother is ‘humanely’ shot, the orphaned ‘pouched’ joey is ripped from its mother’s pouch, decapitated, stomped on, or swung repeatedly against the nearest hard object until its head is crushed and its fragile limbs fractured. This is a brutal and dark aspect of ACT Government policy of which few residents appear to be aware. The ‘at-heel’ offspring of the dead mother is deprived of its mother’s company, milk and protection and forced to flee and fend for itself against predators such as foxes and marauding dogs. When large male kangaroos are killed the social structure of the mob is destroyed, one consequence of which is a lack of control over the behaviour of juvenile males towards immature females.

Even if not killed outright, the fleeing, fearful and possibly injured kangaroo will often die a lingering and excruciatingly painful death, which could take months. Pain, exertion and anxiety create physiological and biochemical changes in metabolism leading to lactic acidosis and muscle damage, including to the heart muscle, the release of myoglobin, renal failure, tissue hypoxia, paralysis, and progressive damage to the liver, adrenal gland, brain and lymphatic system. No fair-minded human with an ounce of compassion could possibly believe there is anything ‘humane’ in any of this, but it is doubtful that ACT Government surveys of residents’ perceptions of kangaroos include this information.

3.

The Plan fails the common good.

The ACT Government actively promotes the killing of perfectly healthy orphaned kangaroo joeys because it is perceived that they represent a problem for local grasslands, which ironically are often scheduled for development. ACT Government rangers regularly kill infant orphaned kangaroos by smashing their bodies against hard objects. They will not hand these joeys over to experienced carers. The RSPCA similarly kills orphaned kangaroo joeys that are brought to them in good faith by the general public.

Kangaroos, and all other native animals, are ‘owned’ by the Crown, not by governments, farmers or anyone else. Wildlife enhances the common good assets of all the citizens of our nation. This is why our unique wildlife is the second most important reason why international tourists come to this country. Sadly, killing of kangaroos in this Territory and in this country has become such an ingrained cultural pastime that it is now the largest single mammal slaughter in the world. Governments are given responsibility for protecting and enhancing our common good assets. They are not given carte blanche to degrade or diminish these collective assets, whether they are kangaroos, other wildlife, air, water, or any other important elements of our natural world. The Plan does not appreciate the universal significance of the wildlife it seeks to diminish.

4.

The Plan presents to society an ethical view that solutions to human-perceived ‘problems’ in the environment are best dealt with using firearms and violence.

The Plan presents a view that kangaroos need to be killed by shooting and where healthy joeys are killed by painful and stressful heart puncture without sedation.

The so-called ACT Code for the Humane Destruction of Kangaroos, even if it was considered ethical, is not adhered to in the killing programs overseen by the ACT and other governments. The herding and consequent stress and injury that occurred at the Belconnen Naval Transmission Station (BNTS) slaughter several years ago, without any consideration by government, is testament to this. The evidence of blatant kangaroo brutality in the form of harassment, continual herding, stress, pain, terror and separation, apparently overseen and approved of by a national animal welfare body, veterinarians and government officials, was totally inconsistent with Codes of Practice and completely unethical. The Plan does not provide a compassionate perspective toward wildlife. The disconcerting statements at page 95, 4.61b proves the ACT Government and its employees endorse illegal and harmful action according to the requirements of the Code of Practice as shown in the available video evidence of the herding undertaken by ACT Government employees at BNTS. Such government endorsement to harm encourages and incites the unscrupulous, the mentally disturbed, and the brutal to maim and kill wildlife illegally for their ‘pleasure’, whether by the use of firearms or other weapons of destruction. Peer-reviewed literature demonstrates a strong connection between animal cruelty and cruelty to humans. Mass murderers Ivan Milat and Martin Bryant, among others, had previous records of cruelty to animals, and child and spouse abuse in the home are often connected to episodes of animal cruelty by male adults.

Those of us who spend a large part of our lives caring for other beings are profoundly affected by the harshness, cruelty, and brutish and blustering forcefulness in the language, reports and actions of uncaring and unknowing institutions, their ‘leaders’, and their paid acolytes in our local communities and extended society. Kindness, compassion, respect, giving, and a willingness to closely observe and learn are the qualities required of a good carer, a decent society and a respected and admired leader. Neoliberalism and its disciples have instead given us institutions and leaders that demonstrate meanness, self-interest, greed and a disregard for the other dressed up in bureaucratic and political spin, in the name of the euphemisms ‘economy’, ‘management’ and ‘conservation’.

A better society is when a gentle hand is extended to all beings to give a second chance, where there is kindness and respect, where suffering is relieved and when hope and opportunity flourish through interconnectedness. There is no respect for ‘economy’, ‘management’ and ‘conservation’ meted out with a gun and its associated nastiness. Conservation underpinned by cruelty is still cruelty. If there is no heart and no soul in this place and economic rationalism and complacency are the order of the day, society is diminished and unattractive.

5.

The Plan promotes emotional distress for humans.

Knowing that a deliberate and cruel program of killing kangaroos and their joeys is being carried out is emotionally distressing to many humans. The slaughter of the kangaroos at the BNTS several years ago had a substantial emotional impact on the lives of many people in the ACT and surrounding areas, and many have sought ongoing medical attention as a consequence. The kangaroo killing program at Majura had a similar impact on those who are caring and compassionate in our society. By advocating more shooting of kangaroos and brutal destruction of their young, this Plan and the ACT Government are derelict in not recognising this emotional distress, and may be held accountable for the emotional health of many people in the region should this become a legal challenge.

6.

The Plan fails to offer any mechanism of ecological learning that will ensure a sustainable future based on possibility and hope, rather than one based on destruction.

The Plan seeks to centralise ‘control’ of the environment with Government. However, if the planet we all live on is to survive, a concerted effort by all its inhabitants to enhance sustainability is required. Teaching and learning of an eco-literacy and initiatives to implement good living practice through our education systems are therefore significant. This Plan does not deal with wider questions of eco-literacy within any broad-based learning framework and therefore is deficient as a tool for environmental sustainability in the ACT and surrounding region.

7.

Urban planning failure.

The Plan is primarily concerned with kangaroos eating grass. Of course there is nothing magical about that observation. However, the simplistic tenor of the Plan is to remove the kangaroo from its natural grassland habitat to enable development, without any strategy for habitat enhancement elsewhere. The default solution is always to kill the kangaroo, or to tinker with its biology through misplaced sterilisation programs, rather than to seek creative habitat-enhancing initiatives and wildlife corridors that facilitate better integration of nature and humans. Current ACT planning initiatives are focused on separating humans from nature and there are no planning initiatives to ensure wildlife safety, in particular of the kangaroo, in the face of rapid urban sprawl across the landscape. The ACT could well learn from the experiences of many other cities around the world which are bringing nature back into central urban areas because it has been demonstrated that such interaction is good for both humans and wildlife.

8.

Community health and wellbeing.

The Plan fails to consider the human distress caused by killing perfectly healthy orphaned kangaroo joeys, as sanctioned by current ACT policy. ACT Government rangers, the RSPCA ACT, and some ACT veterinarians, use barbaric methods to kill these infants (bludgeoning, decapitation, heart puncture without sedation etc.).

9.

The Plan fails to consider economic options.

The ACT economy is heavily dependent on a very narrow revenue stream from land development for housing and commercial purposes.

Tourism is an important industry and much more could be achieved in this area to enhance the economically-vulnerable nature of the ACT. Wildlife tourism is the second most important reason why international visitors come to Australia. However, Canberra is not taking advantage of this. In Canberra, any wildlife tourism is currently restricted to the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve, which is a half-day visit away, not realistic for any tourists seeking to cover as much as they can in a short visit to the national capital. Visits to the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve are few, and even many school excursions to Canberra bypass this facility. The KMP does not consider the value of the kangaroo as an international tourist icon, and the kangaroo killing attitude of Canberra has made many international visitors decide not to visit the national capital.

McLeod (2004) found that Australian wildlife helped secure over $1.8 billion in inbound tourist dollars, and more than 14,000 jobs in the tourist industry. McLeod also estimated that the ‘costs’ associated with kangaroos, such as loss of production, vehicle damage, research etc. amounted to only $76 million.

There is more than an intimation in the Plan that the increase in kangaroo-related motor vehicle accidents is due to an increase in kangaroo numbers in and around the ACT. This would be an incorrect conclusion from the research that has been undertaken by Dr Daniel Ramp on this topic. Having read all Ramp’s work on traffic accidents and animals, I note that not once does he draw any conclusion that an increased number of traffic accidents reflects a change in size of the local kangaroo population. Quite the reverse, Ramp points to increased traffic flow, driver risk-taking behaviour, road design, vehicle engineering and animal habitat fragmented by human action as likely culprits.

While the KMP undertakes no cost-benefit analysis it is able to intimate through its extensive discussion of motor vehicle accidents that it is this factor and not tourism that is the significant determining variable in any economic impact analysis. Any serious cost-benefit analysis that includes the benefits of tourism, which only gets a few lines in the KMP, would overwhelmingly suggest that the economic benefits outweigh any economic costs.

10.

Legal perspectives.

A submission by the NSW Young Lawyers Animal Rights Committee in response to the NSW draft Kangaroo Management Plan (2001) argued that the Government had a role in actively re-educating the public, firstly to dispel the myth that kangaroos pose a threat to environmental and grazing interests, and secondly to remind Australia that it loses moral authority overseas on issues such as ’scientific’ whaling, and the slaughter of seals as a result of its ongoing wildlife massacres.

11.

International reputation.

There is no doubt that the slaughter of kangaroos at the BNTS, within sight of Australia’s Parliament, and at Majura, has had a significant deleterious effect on international perceptions about the way in which Australia treats its wildlife. These negative international perceptions will be hard to overcome and the ACT KMP simply seeks to make these perceptions more entrenched by condoning, and even encouraging, ongoing cruelty to the kangaroo, our national icon.

Failures for the Environment:

12.

The Plan fails to provide an ecological end point as a goal for its recommended actions against the kangaroo.

How will we know whether the stated recommendations of the KMP, if implemented, will actually contribute to enhanced ecological value if there is no target ecology articulated? What is the target ecology sought and how do we know that killing large numbers of kangaroos will contribute to this optimum ecological outcome, and to what degree? Simply taking two elements (the kangaroo and grasslands) out of the ecological system for analysis and intervention is completely unsatisfactory, when we all know there are many interconnected elements in a regionalised ecological system. Rather than ‘regionally endanger' one species (the kangaroo) in the hope that other 'threatened' species might become 'abundant', would it not make more ecological sense to focus on bringing the whole system into equilibrium by basing action on a full and thorough site- specific whole-of-ecosystem analysis? The Ramp and Roger paper: Our ‘common’ wildlife may be the next ‘sleeping’ threatened species, adds significant weight to this proposition.

The argument that it is morally acceptable to sacrifice one native species (the kangaroo) considered ‘overabundant’ in order to help others considered ‘endangered’ or ‘threatened’ cannot be argued on ethical grounds if kangaroos were properly recognised not as objects or automata but as sentient beings that suffer as humans do. The laws of the land in most societies would not allow such actions if we were talking about ‘the other’ in the form of humans and not animals. We have seen this hierarchical construction of self-meaning in the various Canberra kangaroo killing events in the last few years at the BNTS, Majura, Callum Brae and elsewhere. We see the same deficient ‘moral’ argument put forward by politicians and others in relation to the so-called kangaroo ‘harvesting’ industry and any association it might have with traditional agriculture production, and in the extraordinary statement by Garnaut that we ought to substitute kangaroo for beef in our diet to save the planet from climate change, when clearly the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions are anthropogenic, not wildlife!

13.

The Plan fails to identify any integrated ecological monitoring framework for the future, based around its recommended actions to ensure continuous improvement over time.

The Plan offers no ecological temporal markers or frameworks for ongoing and rigorous monitoring to assess whether the claimed environmental benefits from reducing kangaroo numbers will eventuate. At a bare minimum, this is needed for transparency and accountability, but it is also required to ensure that continuous improvement is achieved and maintained.

14.

The Plan deals only with the narrow biophysical and fails to consider the metaphysical of landscape meaning.

It is a sad fact that non-Indigenous Australians have a long-standing disregard for their adopted country’s unique wildlife and in particular for the kangaroo. Indigenous Australians have recognised for millennia the close emotional and mythological association with the kangaroo that gives fundamental meaning to the landscape we all occupy. The Plan considers none of this metaphysical landscape understanding.

15.

‘Culling’: A blunt instrument with only short-term local impact.

The report by Olsen, P., and Low, T. (2006), “Update on Current State of Scientific Knowledge on Kangaroos in the Environment, Including Ecological and Economic Impact and Effect of Culling”, for the NSW Kangaroo Management Advisory Panel, suggests there is scant evidence that ‘harvesting’ (or culling) controls numbers, or mitigates perceived vegetation damage, except very locally, and that ‘culling’ is unlikely to be effective in anything but the very short term.

16.

Inappropriateness of Translocation.

The Plan argues that from a ‘welfare’ and cost perspective the translocation of kangaroos and the creation/maintenance of corridors from areas identified for development (e.g. the BNTS, Majura Valley, Molonglo Valley), or in order to reduce perceived urban/ rural impacts (e.g. on farmers) is inappropriate.

However, wildlife relocation is an everyday occurrence around the world, carried out by zoos and other institutions. In Australia, translocation of kangaroos with success is also a common occurrence, although many such exercises have not yet been written up in peer-reviewed literature. Dr David Croft (per comm.) has stated “…there is sufficient information on the Eastern Grey Kangaroos’ status and biology in the wild to confidently conduct a translocation.” Campbell and Croft (2001) described the translocation of twenty hand-reared Eastern Grey Kangaroos near Mudgee.

There are also a number of articles reporting on the success of translocations in Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales (eg Short et al 1992, 1995 Delroy et al 1995, Campbell and Croft 2001, Higginbottom and Page 2008, Tanner and Hocking 2001). In the local region the translocation of large and small macropods is a common occurrence. My 60kg wife and I do this regularly, with complete success for the animals concerned. We have now performed hundreds of these translocations (refer: Austen, R (2008). “Macropod fence injuries”, Paper to the National Wildlife Rehabilitation Conference, Canberra). In the past 18 months we have translocated and tracked 100 rehabilitated wild and semi-wild kangaroos back into the wild, with a 98% success rate (publication forthcoming: “Kangaroo Translocation: Program effectiveness and welfare goals”, International Journal of Animal Welfare Science and the National Wildlife Rehabilitation Conference, 2010). It is dishonest to state in the KMP that kangaroo translocation of wild kangaroos cannot be successfully carried out.

17.

‘Outside’ science used to justify local circumstances.

The Plan, while emphasising the significance of the regional grassland circumstances in the ACT, fails to support its recommended local actions with completed and peer-reviewed scientific findings that relate directly to these same regionalised situations. Instead, the Plan draws from peer-reviewed research undertaken in other regions. If we are at all concerned about the ecosystems of the ACT there needs to be analysis of them in situ, rather than dragging in findings from other ecosystems, and importantly this research needs to be peer reviewed. It is just not satisfactory to waive this aside by saying it is not needed for policy analysis, as stated in the KMP. There has been ample time for the ACT to undertake research of peer-reviewed standard on the topic of kangaroos and their interactions with ACT temperate grasslands.

18.

Use of the DSE.

The use of the dry sheep equivalent (DSE) is not logical as a proxy for kangaroo grazing within an ecological context. Why would the eating behaviour of an introduced, herded, hard-hoofed farm animal be used as a proxy for a native, free-living, soft- footed animal? Unless there is definitive kangaroo-specific, peer-reviewed, science the Plan’s conclusions about kangaroo impact will not be accurate.

19.

The Plan’s data on kangaroo numbers has significant inherent error.

In calculating kangaroo numbers the analysis in the Plan accepts very high levels of coefficient variation. Survey data with this level of sample error are not at all convincing. More importantly, the calculated numbers take no specific account of age, size, physical condition or gender of the animals, the changing characteristics (water, grass, shelter etc.) over time of the land on which the kangaroos reside, and how kangaroos move across the landscape throughout the day and the seasons in response to many factors (wind, heat, cold, feeding time, resting time, breeding time, fires, water supply, human presence, predator presence etc,). It is a significant error to assume that a single head count at a single point in time in a number of set locations, whatever the method used (transect, distance sampling etc.), will accurately account for any of these variables, and therefore how kangaroos spread across the available landscape at other points in time. Conclusions from this analysis about kangaroo ‘overabundance’ or otherwise, density, or any increase or decline in numbers over time are thus spurious.

20.

The Plan ignores the counterfactual

If kangaroos are being charged with eating too much grass in the ACT, where is the local peer-reviewed analysis that shows the specific local impact on this grass when numbers are reduced or completely eradicated, as in the case of the former BNTS site at Lawson? What is the optimum grass cover sought and how will the positive influences kangaroos have brought to grasslands for millennia be replicated when the grasslands are without kangaroos? Mowing, spraying, and hard-hoofed production animal agistment will not do this. The Plan considers the ‘eating grass’ aspect of the kangaroo, but does not consider the other attributes that add value to the grassland it has traditionally inhabited.

Grasslands were used as the final excuse for killing at BNTS. Subsequently, the toxic waste assessment report said that most of the grasslands would have to be dug up for remediation, and that seeds would need to be collected in order to re-vegetate after the bulldozers and trucks had completed their soil removal work. If this is possible, these grasses are clearly not as sensitive as we all have been led to believe. In other words, if degradation of 'sensitive' grasslands in the ACT is to be attributed to kangaroos, simply fence off the affected areas and undertake re-vegetation programs. Similarly we were led to believe that at Majura the kangaroos were damaging the ‘pristine’ grassy woodlands, but this woodland area is also heavily infested with noxious weeds.

21.

Inconsistent evidence

When the ACT Government gave evidence to the ACT Administrative Tribunal during the hearing about kangaroos at the Majura Firing Range it stated (at paragraph 77 of the decision transcript): ‘…that EGKs tend to be relatively sedentary and loyal to a particular area’. However, in the ACT Government’s Kangaroo Management Plan (page 134) the notion of ‘site fidelity’ is dropped when it says there is a clear net movement of kangaroos between government reserves and private leasehold rural land. Which is it to be? Are they sedentary, or do they (as common sense would dictate) travel in search of food?

22.

Disingenuous literature review

One has to wonder about the professionalism of the ‘science’ in the KMP when there is an apparent reluctance to submit work to peer review but where at the same time there is no hesitation in discounting the work of other well-respected researchers with literally dozens of peer-reviewed papers on the subject. On page three of the ACT Government Kangaroo Management Plan, for example, criticism is levelled at Dr David Croft. But it is Croft who has demonstrated his professional credentials in the eyes of many external reviewers. Indeed, Dr Croft's most recent paper was published in 2009 and appears to be a valuable comparison of the grazing pressure of red kangaroos and sheep.

22.

KMP Peer Review Process

Public statements by the ACT Government in relation to the release of the KMP suggest it has been ’peer reviewed’ by Dr Graeme Coulson, in the hope that it might give the document some professional credibility in the community. In a small quote from Dr Coulson’r review statement to the ACT Government, it is noted [quote from ACT information release April 2010] that the “…use of the scientific literature is measured and pertinent; no key paper is missing”. While this statement is far from being one of overwhelming support for the KMP, it has to be noted how strange it is that a Plan that seeks to address environmental, social and economic matters in relation to the ACT should be reviewed by just one person with no professional or academic credentials in the areas of economy or society and only a narrow band of environmental management expertise limited to the ecology of kangaroo behaviour.

23.

ACT Government Responses to Draft Plan Submissions.

In April 2010, the ACT Government issued its response to comments raised in some of the 70 submissions it received on the Draft KMP during the consultation period. The response is highly selective in the issues it seeks to raise and in a number of cases arrogantly dismisses them as being from ‘opponents’, rather than accept that perhaps, just perhaps, there might be people among those not supporting the Plan who actually know more about the topic at hand than does the ACT Government. Given that there were more submissions opposed to the Plan than supporting it, this is a lost opportunity for the ACT Government to learn from others.

Conclusion:

The ACT draft Kangaroo Management Plan fails society, the economy and the regional environment in more than twenty important ways. The document is disturbing for its very narrow, short-sighted centralist approach to the region’s ecology. It is weak on matters of ecological sustainability and education in eco-literacy and seeks to allocate control of environmental sustainability to a small group of under-scrutinised and seemingly unaccountable to the public Government officials and their supporters, rather than allowing it to be the responsibility and concern of all residents in the region. The Plan is dangerous in supporting the further concentration of the ACT economy into a narrow dependence on property development rather than a more creative-knowledge driven future where nature might play a, uniquely, central role as distinct from other medium sized cities around the world that are overcome with the ugliness of urban sprawl and the motor vehicle. Finally, the research undertaken by the ACT Government is poor and unethical, being predicated on association and not causality and promoting practice that can be shown to be illegal. A more enlightened approach needs to be taken if questions of environmental sustainability and public involvement are to be taken seriously, honestly and ethically.

Fast forward a generation and where the kangaroo in this country will be and where the ethical and moral value of our community will be are not unconnected. It is a safe prediction that alterity in such future communities like the ACT will be non-existent.

Wednesday 5 April marked an historic development in the relationship between Australia’s First Peoples, our shared country and all our unique flora and fauna.

This day in Canberra, the Australian Alliance For Native Animal Survival (AAFNAS) was officially constituted at a meeting of Indigenous representatives from around the country.

After voting on the constitution and charter and ratification of the committee – Eric Craigie (President), Ray Ferguson (Vice-President), Glenda Wenck (Secretary) and George Dingo (Treasurer) – founding President Eric Robert Craigie said:

‘Today is the beginning of a new era of consultation between the original guardians of our land and government and institutional decision makers. The formation of AAFNAS will provide us with the opportunity to influence future policy for Australia’s unique flora and fauna.’

The concept of AAFNAS was born in Canberra on 10th November 2008 in response to the continuing massacres of landlocked kangaroos in the ACT without consultation with the Indigenous/Aboriginal peoples and local communities, and the arrest and prosecution of six Aboriginal people who were performing a smoking and healing ceremony. Since European arrival in 1788 far too many species of mammals, birds and plants have become extinct. This destruction of animals and land continues at a relentless speed.

The aims of AAFNAS are:

• To educate the Australian and international communities about our unique native flora and fauna. This includes the Aboriginal concepts of caring for country, natural resources and all life past, present and future.

• To link Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and international supporters to work together to help native species and their carers both locally and nationally.
• To tap into the ancient and intimate knowledge held by the Aboriginal people and build a grass roots national organisation.
• To re-establish land rights and allocate the resources necessary to establish carers’ centres/safe tracts of land for native species along the dreaming tracks.

Eric Craigie concluded by inviting other Indigenous groups to join with AAFNAS and become a unified voice for our land and our future.

Source: Press Release 5 April 2010
Spokesperson: Eric Craigie 0402 709 913

Photo by Jill Quirk

In Victoria in 2010

Why is it that bushfires, regeneration burns, ecological burns, asset protection burns etc., are not considered fuel-reducing?

Why is Victoria logging in water supply catchments when we are short of water - especially after they have burned?

Why has not the impact of continually losing hollow trees as a result of increased deliberately lit fires and logging and the threat of extinction this poses to possums, parrots and other species being referred for consideration under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act?

What are the projected carbon emissions from all deliberately lit fires such as fuel reduction burns, asset protection burns, regeneration burns, etc.?

Why aren't the fuel loads before and after these deliberately lit fires and bushfires measured? If you believe they are, where and when?

The author suggests that readers
Email these questions to the Bushfires Royal Commission enquiries[AT]royalcommission.vic.gov.au your local Federal and State Members of Parliament Victorian State Members in the Upper House http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/mlcs.html and the Lower House http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/mps.html; Victorian Federal House of Representatives http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-alpha.asp and Victorian Senators http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/homepages/index.asp email

Please send all and any replies to jim_w304[AT]hotmail.com

Source of this article was an email.

Click on image for more on locality and handlers

Original story from Beverley Hills observer

The footage here and the story below were posted on January 18, 2010 by Geekylie. Editorial comments, contact details of people responsible, and links to sites and films where you may learn useful things about kangaroos and see lovely photos are below her story.

"Saturday 16 & Sunday 17 January, 2010 Venue: The Paley Center for Media, Beverly Hills:

Tourism Australia had a huge kangaroo on the concrete - on a busy busy footpath, it even started raining. The kangaroo was next to (8 to 10 feet away) from a busy busy street and was so traumatized it was rocking back and forth over and over again. On Saturday it was running around and round in circles, chasing its tail in a craze.

Sunday (when a friend and I took the pics & video) a Tourism Australia Employee just stood around rolling their eyes while bystanders were clearly disturbed.

I am not affiliated with any activist groups, I am just someone who works in Beverly Hills,and had to walk past this atrocity two days in a row. At one point one of the Australian Tourism worker rolled her eyes and called me 'pathetic' for caring about the animal that was clearly in distress.

I have contacted all local & Australian media and US Animal right groups, including PETA, SPCA, The Humane Society and Animal Liberation. The Police, Fire Dept, and Animal Control are also aware of this disgusting act of cruelty in the name of Tourism Australia. I am also sending all this media to Travel Agencies, Hotel Chains, and also NZ Media outlets, who I know will love to get some bad press on terrible Aussie tourism PR practices.

Is this REALLY going to get people to go to Australia?
It REALLY gives new meaning to the lyrics "Tie me kangaroo down Sport" doesn't it?

To express your disgust, please contact: MHatch[at]tourism.australia.com or email or call any of the numbers at tourism.australia.com. This is a very busy footpath, and the HUGE ADULT kangaroo was there for over 5 hours, running around and round in circles, chasing its tail - it was sooo traumatized that people were leaving in tears."

Official description of the 'event':

"Angelenos are invited to experience a little slice of Australia in the heart of Beverly Hills. A program of multimedia events from wildlife and music to "walkabout" travelogues and cultural performances will ensure that there is something for everyone. Visitors will take a journey through some of Australia's iconic landscapes as well as its undiscovered gems with interactive displays and destination showcases. Visitors can also hear from special speakers, including National Geographic photographer Annie Griffiths Belts. Sunday will feature a special wine tasting event with Wine Australia, open to the public.

The event is open to the public from 10.30 am to 3.00 pm with ticketed KCRW events following each day:

KCRW Music Showcase with DJ Jason Bentley will take place Saturday January, 16 at 3.00 pm.
KCRW's Good Food Live event featuring KCRW's own Evan Kleiman will take place Sunday January, 17 at 3.00 pm. The event will feature Australian celebrity chefs including Curtis Stone and Pete Evans."

Editorial Comment

Thank you Geekylie for exposing the bear-baiting mentality of ?official representatives for our country. They deserve to be exposed in the same way as the kangaroo, which did not, of course.

This is unfortunately a really good example of how governments and commerce in Australia regard kangaroos and other wildlife - as unfeeling novelties to be used, abused and make money out of. These people do not represent thinking Australians and one hopes that Americans will realise this.

Only people truly deprived of knowledge, joy and empathy would find this kind of thing acceptable. That people 'marketing' Australia should be so unaware of the impact of their 'event' shows that 'enlightenment' is really just an illusion still in some quite influential circles, notably the commercial ones.

The kangaroo is an animal that lives in families and clans, associated with larger mobs. They have strong family hierarchies and take comfort and joy from each other. Whoever put this animal by itself in this situation - which would threaten a domestic dog or a child - needs to leave the city and go and learn about the natural world and the sentient creatures that inhabit it. The best film we have ever seen about kangaroos is called Faces in the Mob. After you have seen it you will understand and know many more things about kangaroos and ourselves than most people ever realise. You can buy it in NTSC and Pal format here.

If you want to support Australian Wildlife, here is a place to start: The Australian Wildlife Protection Council. Note also that a new political party has just formed to defend wildlife and domestic animals in Australia. It is called The Animal Justice Party.

Please let us know what happens to the kangaroo

We would like to hear about where the kangaroo went from here and whether it has companions of its own species. How did Australia allow a kangaroo to be exported to the US in such circumstances anyway? One assumes that kangaroos sometimes go to zoos in the US (even though this is a horrible fate for a wild social animal), but how do they get from the zoos to Tourism Australia?

Who is responsible?

Who is responsible for this kind of attitude? Martin Ferguson (Email: Martin.Ferguson.MP[AT]aph.gov.au ) is the Federal Minister with the Tourism Portfolio, which Tourism Australia, reports to. Tell him what you think and get him to investigate this situation where kangaroos are manhandled, isolated and exposed in another country.

"Tourism Australia is a statutory authority of the Australian Government, which promotes Australia as a tourism destination internationally and domestically and delivers research and forecasts for the sector. Tourism Australia reports to the Cabinet Minister with responsibility for tourism, the Hon Martin Ferguson AM, MP.

Established on 1 July 2004, Tourism Australia brings together the collective skills and knowledge of four separate organisations: the Australian Tourist Commission; See Australia; the Bureau of Tourism Research and Tourism Forecasting Council. The main objectives of Tourism Australia under the Tourism Australia Act 2004 are to: * Influence people to travel to Australia, including for events; * Influence people travelling to Australia to also travel throughout Australia; * Influence Australians to travel throughout Australia, including for events; * Help foster a sustainable tourism industry in Australia; and * Help increase the economic benefits to Australia from tourism.

Tourism Australia is a statutory body subject to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act). This recognises the commercial focus of the new body and the need for it to operate flexibly in a commercial environment."

Personally I thought Steve Irwin did it much better.

The kangaroo does need help, like wildlife everywhere. In Australia kangaroos are victims of developers(film) and our development and population growth mad and corrupt governments. There are some sick sectors in our society and it seems that Tourism Australia may be right up there among them.

Friends interacting - photo by Brett Clifton

Sane Australians, however, want to cherish these amazing creatures. Have a look at Brett Clifton's photographs of generations of kangaroos on his land, which he sends out daily to people all over the world.

You can read a lot more about kangaroos here.

There are also nine ten-minute documentaries on kangaroos - mostly interviews with ex-butcher, Pat O'Brien on the roo meat industry, the problem of human expansion for kangaroos, the way that statistics are collected about them, and of how Steve Irwin found Pat O'Brien and funded his life-long work of kangaroo protection. Pat O'Brien's site is http://www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com/index.html.

Photo of big male by Brett Clifton

Preamble

The Animal Justice Party has been formed as a response to growing public concern about the neglect of animals and animal protection issues by political parties. It will give a voice to those who cannot speak for themselves. It will provide a focal point for voters frustrated by the lack of political action and who feel strongly that much more needs to be done through our parliamentary systems to assist the wellbeing of animals. There is a need for laws and processes which recognise animals' needs and capabilities and which protect their interests, whether they are domestic, farmed or wild. The Animal Justice Party will also ensure such laws and processes are properly enforced and implemented to achieve genuine justice for animals.

Our treatment of animals and the environments we share with them are often marred by a lack of understanding, leading to disrespect and cruelty. At a time when the planet’s environment is being challenged on so many fronts, we must urgently act to ensure that all animals that both contribute to and depend on it are respected and valued for their intrinsic and fundamental roles. We need to build a new relationship with the planet that is inclusive of all of its inhabitants. With a fresh approach towards animals and the ecological systems of Earth, humans can create more rewarding and ethical communities and relationships built on deeper understandings and firm principles of justice.

The Animal Justice Party seeks a restoration of the balance between the human, natural and animal worlds which acknowledges the interconnectedness and inter-dependence of these worlds, and respects the wellbeing of animals alongside that of humans, societies, economies and environments.

Vision

A planet on which animals are treated with respect, dignity, compassion and kindness, where they are able to flourish in their respective environments, and where their unique needs and capabilities are recognised and their interests are protected.

Mission

To promote and protect the interests and capabilities of animals by providing a dedicated voice for them in Australia’s political system.

Fundamental Factors

To implement its vision and give effect to its mission, the Animal Justice Party recognises the importance of the following:

• An education system which fosters in its values an awareness of the natural and animal worlds, and of human responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of the Earth and its inhabitants

• A political system in which participatory, deliberative democracy can be exercised so that citizens have the ability to express their true concerns about the treatment of animals

• An administrative system in which governments and institutions deal with animal and environmental issues in a transparent, honourable and accountable manner

• An economic system in which ethics, the protection of the natural world and its inhabitants, and the realisation of capability of all beings are highly valued for their intrinsic roles

• A societal system in which we acknowledge that it is our human duty and responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of all animals

• A robust legal system that recognises and protects the interests and capabilities of humans, animals and their environments

• A population settlement and land use system that is truly sustainable for all its inhabitants and ecosystems.

Principles

In all its actions, the Animal Justice Party will be guided by the following principles:

• Each animal is the experiencing subject of a life. Animals and the natural environment should be respected for their own sake, not merely for their instrumental values

• Animals have their own capabilities which they should be free to realise

• Human interactions with all animals should be based on respect and compassion

• Humans have the responsibility to avoid harm to animals and the environment through their lifestyles, diets and practices

• Policies of other political parties, both nationally and internationally, that advance Animal Justice Party principles will be supported.

Key Goals

The Animal Justice Party seeks the following:

• A legal framework and an administrative system in which animals' status is based on their sentience and capabilities, not their instrumental value

• Constitutional protection of animals and the environment

• A political decision-making process that is more responsive to the needs and interests of all animals

• An end to human practices that cause pain and distress to animals

• An end to the killing of animals for human benefit

• An end to the exploitation and destruction of the natural environment that is the habitat of so many unique Australian native animals

• Adoption by an increasing number of Australians of lifestyles and diets that are more respectful towards animals and the environment

• An acknowledgement that violence and cruelty are not the default settings for society and animals, nor are they solutions for planetary sustainability.

Key Strategies

The Animal Justice Party will:

For All animals

• Develop a new legal status for animals which acknowledges their rights to live protected from human harm

• Ensure consistency in the protection of all animals – companion, farmed and wild – regardless of their commercial or instrumental value, or their geographic location

• Support laws, policies and practices that enhance the quality of life of animals and reduce animal suffering

• Oppose laws, policies and practices which harm animals and their environments

• Support and promote lifestyles, practices and diets which maximise support for, and minimise harm to, animals and the environment

• Support the work of appropriately accredited volunteers who care for injured, orphaned and mistreated animals

• Support commercial and recreational ventures that provide opportunities for humans to spend time with animals on the animals' terms and in their worlds, and otherwise raise humans' awareness of animals, their needs, and their quality of life

• Promote values education that recognises the interests and dignity of animals as individual beings.

For Farm animals

• Support animal-friendly farming practices

• Oppose intensive farm animal production and processes that deprive animals of their basic needs and capabilities, expose them to confinement, painful procedures, temperature extremes and other inappropriate husbandry practices, and generally reduce them to the status of commodities

• Oppose transportation of live animals over long distances or otherwise in ways that cause suffering, or expose them to extreme cruelty at the end of the journey

• Oppose the importation of animal products derived from cruel animal production systems in other countries.

For Animals used in experimentation

• Support non-invasive research methods to improve human health as alternatives to the use of animals and animal products

• Oppose the use of animals in any scientific experimentation that inflicts pain, stress, distress and behavioural deprivation unless it is likely to result in a net benefit to the particular animal involved.

For Wild animals

• Enhance animal habitats and foster healthy ecosystems through dedicated terrestrial and marine parks and wildlife corridors, land revegetation and remediation, and animal-friendly land practices

• Oppose the institutional, commercial and recreational killing of wildlife

• Support the development and adoption of non-invasive and non-lethal methods to control native and introduced animal populations, including fertility control and more appropriate land management methods

• Support commercial and recreational ventures that seek to raise humans' awareness of the intrinsic worth of wildlife and natural environments.

For Companion animals

• Support measures to protect animals dependent on human guardians and to prevent their neglect, ill treatment or abandonment.

For Animals used in sport and entertainment

• Oppose the killing and mistreatment of animals in sport, recreation and entertainment.

To join the Animal Justice Party, click here.
© Animal Justice Party, Australia, 2010. For more information, contact: info[AT]animaljusticeparty.org

The Brown Mountain landmark trial has begun!

After months of preparation, our legal team and supporters have gathered in Sale and begun the two-week Brown Mountain landmark trial.

Everything is going very well so far. It's difficult to report on a hearing that is in progress, particularly since we are the plaintiff, so this article might lack a few things.

Our lead barrister, Debbie Mortimer SC, spent Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning in Court outlining what we say are the facts and the law, in a fascinating opening submission.

She spoke about the beautiful native wildlife that is central to our case, and the Court was treated to large pictures of the critters. It was almost surreal, but quite appropriate in our view, to see a team of lawyers in black gowns and wigs defending the furry, the feathered, the cray and the frog.

She said that VicForests has a number of legal responsibilities towards the environment, including endangered species, and that those responsibilities are inconsistent with logging at Brown Mountain.

For a more detailed summary of the first day's hearing, read this excellent article by The Age journalist Kate Hagen, who is attending the hearing #10;h.html">Click here

Journalists from ABC Radio and Win TV (channel 9) are also attending the hearings.

VicForest's Defense

VicForests' lead barrister Ian Waller SC started outlining VicForests' case this afternoon. When Court adjourned today, he said he still had about an hour to go, so we haven't got the full picture yet.

But generally speaking he contended that VicForests' responsibility to the environment wasn't anywhere near as strong as we made out, and was balanced by its requirement to create economic and social benefits. He said that, to the extent to which VicForests has responsibilities to the environment and native wildlife, it has fulfilled them.

Judge and Legal teams in the field

On Wednesday, Justice Osborn and the legal teams were having a look at Brown Mountain first hand. It's not just a bushwalk, though; they will observe first hand some places and concepts about forests, logging and post-logging practices that will later on be discussed in Court.

Schedule

On Thursday morning, VicForests' opening submissions is expected to finish, then Environment East Gippsland will bring out our witnesses.

Court is open to the public. You are welcome to attend if you are in Sale - there have been a few people sitting quietly in the public area. If you drop in, please come up and say hello.

A local wag is tweeting the trial. Click here for regular updates.

Court adjourned until Tuesday 9 March (Monday 8 is a public holiday.)

Information, but not headers, from Jill and the team at EEG
Environment East Gippsland Forest Update

To make a tax-deductible donation for this crucial trial:

* Online - CLICK HERE.
* By direct deposit - email info[AT]eastgippsland.com.au for our bank account details
* By cheque - Make out to EEG and send to: EEG, Locked Bag 3, ORBOST Vic 3888

For more information CLICK HERE.

Picture by Sheila Newman. Wild kangaroo using a recreational boxing bag under a mango tree at a kangaroo re-release centre in Queensland run by Anne-Marie Dineen.

A new political party - The Animal Justice Party - has been formed to champion the rights of animals by people who care about their rights and want them to have happy lives and their own space!

"Cruelty to animals has become an unfortunate and much too common feature of Australian society that needs to end. A number of non-government organisations have been tackling these animal welfare issues at ground level from various perspectives, however there is a need to bring some influence to this agenda from a government policy dimension. The Animal Justice Party is being established to pursue issues of animal welfare through the Australian Parliamentary System by encouraging the adoption of animal friendly policies by other political parties, demonstrating that voters care about animal issues by contesting elections, and educating the electorate about the animal policies of candidates from other political parties.

The Animal Justice Party will actively campaign at a government policy level against animal cruelty atrocities as they relate to wildlife destruction, factory farming, animal transportation, companion and domestic animals, pet animals and the use of animals for sport and entertainment. It will seek to toughen animal protection laws, increase penalties for convicted animal abusers, regulate and restrict the sale and use of pets, and enhance education in greater awareness and appreciation of the needs of animals."

DEVELOPER RULES – URGENT!

WHAT THE ELLS GOING ON?

One rulebook for developer Bob Ells, of King’s Forest/Cobaki Lakes, and one rulebook for everyone else.

Is this right? Are we going to stand for it? What do you think?

4500 lots each Kings Forest and Cobaki Lakes (9000 total) What about the infrastructure, water etc. for such huge developments?

Block sizes from 120m (Normal minimum 450m)

Developer creates own rules for house types, roads, sewerage, etc.

THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE TO OBJECT

Send submission to:

Dept of Planning, PO Box 39 , Sydney 2001

Fax: 02 9228 6540

Email: [email protected]

IF YOU LOVE KOALAS , PLEASE HELP!

Dear Dept Planning

I strongly object to Leda Development being able to create their own rules for house types, roads, sewage etc. What on earth is going on here? Who is governing this country, developers or politicians? Who is this government serving, the people or the developers?

Why is Leda trying to minimise block sizes from 450m minimum to 120m? This is absurd not only for the environment but also the people who will be crammed together like sardines, 4500 lots with a minimum of 9000 people. Surely this will create a lot of crime in the area?

Leda will not be paying for infrastructure, water, rubbish removal, Tweed Shire council and local ratepayers will and we don't even want another 10,000 people here! We can hardly cope with the traffic and water demands we have now.

What I am most concerned about however, is the wildlife. Round Mountain was the #1 koala colony in Tweed shire and tragically it was totally burned out in a major bushfire a month or so ago. That leaves Kings Forest as the new #1 koala colony and you are allowing a major housing development on it?

What hope do the koalas have? Koalas stop breeding when stressed and many things cause stress - even simple things like having their favourite tree chopped down, or the loss of family members to say nothing of dogs (which will be permitted at Kings Forest), 6 lane freeways (with no overpasses, underpasses or exclusion fences), invasion of habitat. Their main habitat will become the new golf course which of course will be regularly sprayed with neurotoxic organophosphates which also will cause cancer and reproductive problems.

In addition to the threat to diminishing numbers of koalas, there a total of 450 species of native animals on Kings Forest , 33 of which are endangered. Why isn't the government doing something proactive to protect our wildlife? Are you not aware of the fact that Australia has the highest rate of species extinctions on the planet? Wildlife is under the radar of any government department and I would like to know WHY.

By the time people wake up to the horrific loss of biodiversity it will be too late. Humans cannot survive without biodiversity. The best protection is for the government to reclaim land like Kings Forest and leave it for the native animals. Why does money win out every time? What about your children's future? Are you even thinking of what a diminished future they will have with no koalas in Tweed ?

Tweed is home to more biodiversity than even Kakadu yet 2/3rds of these species are at risk of extinction.

Please do something NOW! Stop Kings Forest from going ahead with this madness. Bob Ell is acting like a Frankenstein monster with dollar signs popping out of his eyes and hell bent on destroying our wildlife.

[...]

Sincerely,
Menkit Prince
Uki NSW