Victorian Alps Wild Horse Management Plan

[tsangpo]

Public submissions have opened for the initial stage of the formulation of a management plan by Parks and DEPI. Should be a few people here who could put together personal submissions or submissions on behalf of clubs/organisations. Submissions close on the 22/7. I know that I've seen the significant damage they cause in the more sensitive areas of the alpine environment and the general impact they have on the rest of it.

http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks ... ement-plan

One of the things that I found interesting was this statement in their FAQ: "Ground and aerial shooting involve hunting and shooting free ranging wild horses, either from the ground or from the air. Both ground and aerial shooting are not being considered as options for controlling Victoria’s wild horses as part of the current consultation."

If they acknowledge that the horses are a problem then surely the cheapest and most effective method of control is one that should be investigated.

[vicpres]

Shooting is not being considered for 'politcal' reasons. There are too many groups and individuals vehemently against any measures that will result in death of horses.

Bushwalking Victoria will be putting in a submission and will post it on its web site when this occurs.

[Moondog55]

Waste of good protein in my opinion, wish we could get away from the mystique of the horse and utilise them in some way that benefits more than the blowflys

[Hallu]

Horse meat is really good, you can find it in French supermarkets. All these feral animals should be part of the booming food culture of Australia : camel, donkey, wild pig, wild horse, rabbit, cane toad. There might be some problem with fox, cat and dog meat though, but the 6 I've mentioned should be made available in markets. Chefs need to lead the way, TV food show too. The number of restaurants serving Aussie wild meat is appalling. Chefs focus on lamb, chicken, pork and beef. Good restaurants serving kangaroo and buffalo meat are scarce. Mentalities need to evolve. I'm also curious about the taste of myna ? This is the third most invasive species in the world, the worst threat to Australia (and nobody knows about it because it only threatens other birds...) it needs to be dealt with. Pigeons should be on the menu. Not the crested pigeons native to Australia of course, but the rock pigeons brought from Europe.

I've also just finally learned the difference between these 3 :

Invasive - species has a tendency to spread their range into new areas or plague their range
Ferals - defined as animals for domestic purposes (i.e. pets, recreational use - such as hunting - or beasts of burden) which have gone wild.
Pests - animals which have a direct effect on human standard of living or the environment/ecosystems in areas where they are present, have a high rate of reproduction and are difficult to control

Funny to see that European bees aren't technically feral then, but pests.

[maddog]

If they acknowledge that the horses are a problem then surely the cheapest and most effective method of control is one that should be investigated.

That would seem the sensible approach, but controversial as some consider the wild horse to be a 'heritage' animal (just to confuse Hallu), which caused a massive backlash (Guy Fawkes River National Park). So capture became the fashion.

From the NSW experience:

Some feral horses that are captured will be taken for adoption and used as saddle horses or pets, but experience both here and elsewhere suggests that this will apply mostly to young horses. Most of the older horses are simply not suitable for domestication, due to their wild origins. There is arguably a finite market for these animals in Australia, even if it is only for foals and younger horses. The fact is that a majority of captured feral horses will be transported to abattoirs for slaughter for pet food, and those in the community who are passionate advocates of mustering rather than shooting should at least think about the animal welfare implications of that approach.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resou ... tFinal.pdf

Since implementation of the new management plan, the early enthusiasm for establishing a sanctuary has not been followed through with matching volunteer support and donations. The Horse Heritage Association is now calling for the government to provide the funding for the sanctuary, claiming that the Minister has "passed the buck" to the Association, and that if the Minister "wants all horses removed then it is the responsibility of the Minister and NPWS to ensure that those Heritage horses have somewhere to go". The basic position of the Association was that if the government won't pay for a sanctuary outside the park, then the government should let the horses stay in the park..

Rosalie Chapple. 2005. The politics of feral horse management in Guy Fawkes River National Park, NSW. Australian Zoologist Vol. 33(2)

[Hallu]

The problem is all this crap is decided based on whether the animal is cute or not. It's the same reason why frogs are amongst the most threatened animals on the planet : nobody cares about them. But people care about cute mammals. The problem is that it seems rather inhumane to kill horses from helicopters. But it's worse to poison feral cats and dogs, it's just that it's silent killing, so people don't hear about it or don't care... And to be clear, I believe that killing all feral species/pests is absolutely necessary. And if you don't have the means to do it in a humane way, do it anyway. Those species are threatening native ones, and priority should be given to those, whatever the cost. Horses aren't a threatened species. Kill them all in Australia, you'll still have plenty of them elsewhere. Enforce the idea and kill all the wild horses in a couple of months, people will have forgotten in less than a year. Make some species extinct, whether animal or plant, because we were gutless to do the right thing, that's forever...

[maddog]

Hallu,

Cute species save ugly ones by raising money.

[MartyGwynne]

Hi I am not sure how bad the problem is as compared to the feral Deer (OH or do I mean the most prized and must be preserved 'Game' species).
I dont and most likely wont go to places which are little more than a horse paddock (previously known as a Cow Paddock). so yes I've seen some several years ago but see far more deer these days.
I would like to see money set aside for horse control officers (shooters/trappers/baiters), who would be able to double up to control dogs, cats, deer, plant species and the like. Also as a side bonus they also could assist in S&R, license control (checking), sell permits for access to National Parks, lock gates where required to allow areas not to be degraded by vehicle access when tracks are too wet, perform track maintenance (both walking and vehicle), assist in fuel reduction burns,...
OH I think you get the idea the list is endless.

Stop thinking about single issue items we need many many many of these people (lets call them Park RANGERS or WARDENS) to look after all of the issues rather than the 3 or 4 of them we have to look after the whole of Victoria. Sorry for the rant but I just wish the Victorian Government (who ever is in power) could look after the big picture of our national parks, state forests, reserves or what ever you would like to call them.
Lobby the Vic Gov to put up a big plan not just some ponies when its popular or feral dogs when they are killing livestock. GRRRR.
Marty

[Hallu]

There would be an easy way to finance all this, but such a proposal would automatically be called "communist" here... It's already wrong that we have mines in our parks (the ranger mine in Kakadu, the one in Karijini), but if we were to nationalize those mines, then it would only be fare to tax them on their benefits, and give that money to NATIONAL parks (not just the ones in NT or WA) to help preserve them. I still can't accept the fact that you can go in a national park, prospect for ore, then make the government modify the boundaries of the park so you can have a huge mine and do whatever you want... This would raise uproar and huge unrest in most countries, but in Australia it simply doesn't... Just some protest by the aboriginal communities for the Ranger mine, which was quickly smothered by the government...

[maddog]

So you want National Parks to pick a fight with both the heritage horse people and the miners?

If the mines were nationalised the State would be drawing dividends, not taxing. It would probably be easier to raise royalties or redesign the super profits tax, but in Australia that is just too difficult.

[Hallu]

I don't want NPs to pick a fight, but I would have wanted this gutless government (or the old ones) to say to the mining companies "it's already *&%$#! up enough that you want us to modify the NPs' borders to accommodate a mine, so now you will pay us a percentage on your profits so we can use it to protect and maintain other parks." A very small percentage would even be enough to eradicate many pests and save many species. With such an economical and environmental model you could have pleased everyone : the greens, the conservative etc... and collect much more money to take care of the parks. Everybody keeps complaining about lack of money in parks, yet we have the richest companies in the world taking advantage of it without spending a dime... Phone companies with their phone towers, mining companies urging governments to modify borders for their mines, supertankers crossing the great barrier reef everyday, hydroelectric companies building dams... All these companies should be paying royalties to the parks. Why aren't they ? Even a very small percentage would amount to huge sums for the parks who already survive with hardly anything...

[tasadam]

Waffle warning...
You see, last time I heard of problems up in them there hills, they stuck a guy on a horse & made a legend out of him when he single handedly rounded them up. What is Tom Burlinson doing these days? Seems there's a job for him.
Then, like Clancy of the overflow, he gets older & might be past it.
So maybe we need a new hero to jump on a horse & go round them up.
Tom of course played the part of Jim Craig. He teamed up with Sigrid Thornton, who played Jessica Harrison.
The new kid on the block could well be the winner of The Voice this year, Harrison Craig - he's at least got the name to suit the challenge.

By the way, The Man from Snowy River isn't available in Australia on BluRay, but it is in USA, I bought it and it plays, despite the different region. Just thought I'd share that (while I'm waffling).

[maddog]

I'm sure, on hearing Hallu's suggestion, Gina Stoneheart would happy play her part in the sequel.

[Nuts]

I agree with Hallu, we need government mince factories, a work-for-the-dole program, 'Mincecorps'?

[Hallu]

Please don't deform my views or mock me, Nuts, thx. What I'm suggesting would create plenty of jobs in park management and remove none in the "factories".

[neilmny]

.......... so now you will pay us a percentage on your profits so we can use it to protect and maintain other parks." A very small percentage would even be enough to eradicate many pests and save many species. ........

This is where the idea falls down Hallu just like the Swan master plan to save the world, percentage of profits....no profit no percentage....percentage of market value of output would be better.

[maddog]

The resource rent tax worked just fine for Norway, but the issues are best kept seperate. Mining companies removed a popular Prime Minister a few years ago and replaced his tax with one of their own design. We don't need mining companies redesigning National Parks for us.

[Hallu]

Do you mean they should stop or that taxing them would make them start redesigning our parks ? Because they already do redesign them, especially in WA, NT and Queensland... That's why I was talking about the Ranger Mine, the GBR and the Marandoo mine, all examples of mining companies modifying parks to accommodate their greed.

[maddog]

Hallu,

It's not tax, but law and regulation that allows mining in national parks. It is not just the greed of the miners that allows mining, but also that of governments, communities, and individuals. Conservationists should aim for bipartisan support in regards to national parks, and linking them directly to a 'great big new tax on everything' potentially compromises the political neutrality of the parks.

Revenue directly raised from mining would also present a moral hazard for the parks. If the parks service have a problem with wild horses, but little funding to deal with them, a new uranium mine or electricity transmission line, might just become the solution.

[Nuts]

Hallu, I had your first post in mind- eating them...

So.. mining companies eh- well, they are businesses, by default 'greedy'... it's not mutual, make trade offs, give stakeholders a cut, eventually its just career protesters complaining at the gates.

[peregrinator]

Can I remind list members that initial submissions on the management plan need to be sent to Parks Victoria by 22 July. You can also do a 10 minute survey on this issue at http://www.anzsurveys.com/Community/se.ashx?s=705E3ECB23BF4A13

More information about the preparation of the plan is at http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks/alpine-national-park/plans-and-projects/victorian-alps-wild-horse-management-plan

[stry]

The resource rent tax worked just fine for Norway,

Unless I have been mis-informed, Norway does not have a resources rent tax.

Norway is an equity partner in the development and sale of it's own resources. This encourages a smarter approach from government than simple taxation.

The Norwegians appear to be handling it rather well BTW, but that is my personal opinion only.

[maddog]

Norway taxes profits:

Norway’s petroleum tax system approximates a super profit based tax. Though based on the company income tax system, it utilises an uplift on expenditure to exempt the normal return and reimburses the tax value of exploration expenditure for companies in a loss position. Norway imposes a total tax rate on resource super profits of 78 per cent, consisting of a 50 per cent super profit based tax rate and company income tax of 28 per cent, with no deduction at the company tax level for payments of the super profit based tax.

http://taxwatch.org.au/ssl/CMS/files_cm ... cument.pdf

Norway's government owns a majority share in the largest of the oil companies active in Norway, but it taxes the profits of all. I agree, it seems to work well:

In Norway, which has had a resource rent tax since the early 1970s, the tax has hit company profits. But it hasn't hurt investment, according to Norwegian government officials and oil companies.

The Norwegian petroleum tax is an example of how profits-based resources taxes, even very high ones, don't necessarily discourage investment. If the taxes are well designed they can generate big returns for taxpayers and allow resource companies to make enough profit to cover their costs of capital, many economists say.

Spring Energy has invested $200 million drilling in the icy waters of the North Sea around Norway and recently pumped its first barrel of crude. Statoil, majority Norwegian-government owned, accounts for almost two-thirds of Norwegian oil production. But BP, Shell, ConcoPhillips and ExxonMobil have also invested heavily there.

Total investment in Norway's oil extraction and pipelines in 2008 was 120 billion kroner ($17 billion). Oil production has soared since the tax was introduced and the tax has paid for a $500 billion sovereign wealth fund.

http://www.petermartin.com.au/2010/07/m ... s-set.html

Although I can see merit in imposing a viable profits based tax on natural resource extraction, I can see little in linking that debate to conservation:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2869942.html

[Hallu]

That was my point exactly : there are so many resources in Australia and in so vast quantities that taxing them won't discourage investors, they'd have to come here anyway. We have the biggest uranium deposits in the world, some of the biggest coal and iron deposits, not to mention gold and other stuff... Taking into account that such a tax, if used to shape a modern tourism politics, would boost this tertiary economy, it would actually be beneficial for Australia in the long run. Tourism is a never-ending resource. Mining isn't, and it contributes to destroy natural landscapes... The least it could do is help repair it.

The problem is the government doesn't care much, because tourists from China are the next big thing for the next decade, they're already the highest spending visitors in the country... And they aren't exactly wilderness explorers... Quick photo-ops, cities, food and wines, some reserves where you can get close to the animals, tourists attractions such as cage diving etc... They don't care much about the Kimberley, Cape Yorke Peninsula or going on a 2 week trek in Tassie. But what will the Australian government do if they change mentality and suddenly want authentic outback/wilderness experiences, and start becoming backpackers ? A huge green movement is growing in China, everything is changing fast over there I wouldn't underestimate it... Avoiding decisions to do anything, such as this : http://www.theage.com.au/environment/co ... 2pqqd.html makes you wanna slap Mark Butler in the face...

[maddog]

The least it could do is help repair it.

They do. Often through a bond mechanism:

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/earth-resourc ... tion-bonds

http://www.nswmin.com.au/Policy-and-Adv ... fault.aspx

For example, at the Ranger uranium mine (ERA / Rio Tinto):

At Ranger the planning of final restoration is well-established, and each year the company prepares a full-costed plan which assumes that mining could cease that year. All rehabilitation objectives must be achieved, including ecosystem viability, radiological safety, and landform stability (re erosion). This plan has been used as the basis for calculating the financial provision required for eventual closure at the end of mine life. At the end of 2005 the net present value of the closure model for the Ranger project area and surrounds was estimated at A$186 million, fully provided for in the balance sheet.

A simpler model which can be applied is for the basic estimated cost of rehabilitation upon closure to be a bond held by the government, and such bonds are a routine requirement for any mines today. In the case of Ranger, ERA is obliged to secure funds for certain costs of rehabilitation in case of any need for premature closure. An annually amended plan is submitted to government outlining this provision, which is reviewed by an independent auditor. Money for this purpose is partly in a trust fund administered by the Commonwealth government and partly covered by bank guarantee.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nucle ... eKAdaUkdFI

[Hallu]

How is a rehabilitation bond helping Kakadu in any way ? They're just making plans for when the deposit runs out... It's completely standard. The Ranger Mine has an appalling record of environmental issues : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_min ... ontroversy , the worst one being this one : http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nationa ... -w42y.html . They're constantly trying to cover up the incidents, hence they don't do anything to repair their mistakes... Where the hell are we ? Corrupted Nigeria ? No this is Australia... This is exactly why it's completely stupid to open a mine in an area which is already a national park... Because then if an environmental incident happens, it's gonna destroy the wilderness that's supposed to be protected by its NP status... Worse, it's a World Heritage site, and it's got a uranium mine in its centre apparently run by a bunch of amateurs...

[stry]

maddog,

Thanks for the extra detail.

[peregrinator]

I agree that there are issues relating to mineral exploitation in this country which are extremely important.
But they are indirectly connected to the topic of "free range" horses in the alpine region (and the Barmah forest).

Back to that, if I may. The organisations which are on the panel preparing the Draft Plan are:

The Alpine Brumby Management Association
The Australian Trail Horse Riding Association
The Friends of the Cobberas
The High Country Tourism Industry
The Monero-Ngarigo Traditional Owners
The Mountain Cattleman’s Association of Victoria
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Victoria)
The Victorian Brumby Association
The Victorian National Parks Association

So bushwalking interests, not to speak of those who value natural habitats for various other reasons, are in a distinct minority. All the more reason to visit the Parks Victoria website, make a submission and complete the survey.

[sambar358]

Anyone interested in this topic should spend 10 minutes and complete the survey as it gives a good insight into the sensitivities of this subject in the eyes of many. Simply put...the Vic high country has far too many feral horses and If their numbers are left unchecked then they will continue to damage the environment. Estimates of 10,000 feral horses could be close or way-out.....who knows ? However the feral horse seems to have an aura of sentimentality about it courtesy of "The Man from Snowy River" and the suggested methods to address the problem are reflective of this.....capture, relocation, placing horses with families, de-sexing....while these may placate a public opposed to the use of a lethal method of control they won't address the issue or halt the build-up of horse numbers in the mountains.

Land managers need to initiate methods of feral horse control that do exactly that....control and reduce horse numbers so as to lessen their impact on the environment. It seems that they have recognised that there is indeed a problem....however it is obvious that their suggested methods of control are designed more to appease the scrutiny of the public rather than address the real issue. Most people seem to accept that introduced feral animals such as pigs, goats, foxes, rabbits , cats and deer are able to be shot to control their numbers......but feral horses.....shock-horror....it seems not ! If government agencies are serious about addressing this matter then they need to embrace a methodology that will achieve a significant outcome.....and that is a real reduction in feral horse numbers across their range and to do this will clearly be a long-term activity requiring extensive resources, finance and resolve. To do anything less is merely a fluffy feel-good exercise that will neither halt the building feral horse numbers or reduce their impact on the environment. My guess is that after extensive consultation the interest groups within the Advisory Panel (largely pro-horse) will suggest one or more of the non-lethal options be adopted in a few small selected areas.....much time, money and effort will be expended....a few horses may be captured and a good time will be had by all until the money and interest runs out......but of course the problem will still remain. Time will tell I guess. Cheers

Sambar358

[Hallu]

Just completed the survey. The first clue as to why are mentalities are different for the wild horse, is that we're not even capable of calling them feral horses (as the survey suggests), while that's what they are. If cats and dogs can be a (huge) pest, why can't most people recognize that horses can be too ? Coincidentally, the US are facing the same problem right now : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustang_ho ... d_adoption . It's even worse there, because shooting them is illegal, so they in the process of trying to pass new bills into laws. I still think eating them is the way to go. If a demand for wild horse meat arises, then new farms could open that would take in captured feral horses for butchering and selling their meat. The sales would then in return finance capture, which is more expensive than shooting but also more humane.