Horses and heritage

[peregrinator]

I previously posted the recently estimated population in Victoria by way of comparison, as I hadn't found any recent figures for KNP then. I've since found this statement at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-27/shooting-brumbies-in-national-parks/5267898:

"With recent good seasons and an estimated population growth of between eight to 20 per cent every year, NSW National Parks are projecting that a conservative estimate would put the current horse numbers in the alps at over 10,000, with over 7000 in Kosciuszko National Park."

[Hallu]

So far I haven't seen a "pro-horse" person argumenting truthfully why they shouldn't be culled. To me, the survival of native fauna and flora, even one species, is far more important than the survival of a feral destructive species, even though some find it cute... They simply don't belong in the wild bush. People speak of traditions to keep wild horses alive, but the tradition is riding them, not letting them go freely destroying everything on their path... The problem is that they "only" damage nature. Take the camels for example : still no culling because some find it inhumane. So the cattle stations do it because camels damage fences and watering points. If the horses did the same we would see a lot more support for their culling... The conservation voice in Australia is still too low, and it seems that any sort of lobby can outshout it.

[davidmorr]

OK, I have been scrounging around for the reference I saw months ago about horse numbers. It seems likely that the 40000 number I remembered was for American horses. I am sorry about that. I have edited the first post to reflect this.

While doing this I came across this document put out by NPWS this year.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/protectsnowies/140549Snowies3.pdf

Amongst the interesting facts it includes are:

A 2009 aerial survey showed there were 7000 horses in KNP, substantially more than the 1700 in 2005 as quoted by Giddy_up.
Rate of increase believed to be somewhere between 8 and 22% per year.
NPWS is allowed to remove only 200 horses per year, a total of 2600 since 2002.
In the last three years, only 36% of the horses removed were able to be rehoused. The rest went to an abattoir.
This trapping program has cost $2.8 million so far, or $1070 per horse. (Very expensive horse meat when they go to the abattoir.)

By my calculations, 1,700 to 7,000 in 5 years is a compound rate of increase of about 42.5%/year. Giddy_up may want to check this.
If this rate of increase continued, there would be nearly 29,000 feral horses in KNP today, which is interestingly not that far from 40,000.
At this rate of increase, in five years, we would have 170,000 horses in KNP, far dwarfing Giddy_up's astonishment at the idea of 97,000 horses.

[Hallu]

Vegetation can recover from having 100 000 horses for years and then culling them for good. But small mammals who need this vegetation to survive may not... Not to mention small birds, who use healthy shrub as shelter, and of course insects, who are at the start of the food chain.

PS : 1700 to 7000 horses in 5 years is (7000/1700)^(1/5) = 1.327 , it's actually a yearly rate of increase of 32.7 % . 42.5 % would be if it were over a 4 year period.

[davidmorr]

PS : 1700 to 7000 horses in 5 years is (7000/1700)^(1/5) = 1.327 , it's actually a yearly rate of increase of 32.7 % . 42.5 % would be if it were over a 4 year period.

But it *is* a four year period! 2009-2005 = 4. Here is a spreadsheet showing this:

2005 1700 <<<<
2006 2423
2007 3452
2008 4919
2009 7010 <<<<
2010 9989
2012 14234
2013 20284
2014 28905
2014 41189
2016 58695
2017 83640
2018 119187
2019 169841

The second column is 1.425 times the previous row.

[Giddy_up]

Good stuff davidmorr, that is what is needed to be known.

I would suggest that potentially, this is as close as we will be able to get on numbers until the new census is distributed and based on those numbers we have a cost to execute this cull of $31 million dollars. I think this cost would be acceptable in light of what is being preserved.

Next problem is the re-infestation and control of horses in the adjacent parks and state forests (this only deals with KNP) as no one wants to spend that sort of money and have to re-visit this process within a short time period.

Also of interest to you all I'm sure is the fact that the "have your say" on the nsw.gov/protectsnowies site has been closed and they are not seeking further input which is a shame as only 73 people made comment on this topic and the government will now call that "public consultation"!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit: Not all the "have your say" has been closed, just the bottom portals of commentary.

[davidmorr]

I would suggest that potentially, this is as close as we will be able to get on numbers until the new census is distributed and based on those numbers we have a cost to execute this cull of $31 million dollars. I think this cost would be acceptable in light of what is being preserved.

There are other cheaper ways of culling the horses, that would probably be more humane. $31 million is a lot in the continually-being-reduced budget of NPWS.

I will have more to say on this in the conversations when the opportunity arises.

[mikethepike]

Part of the discrepancy concerning the number of horses in the Parks is whether you are quoting estimates for KNP only or for the whole of the high country NPs located in NSW, Victoria and ACT. The following text is the full report of the 2009 aerial survey of all of the mainland high country and it fully discusses the statistical errors affecting the results. Previous surveys were in 2001 and 2003. http://theaustralianalps.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/2009feralhorsealpssurvey.pdf

An ironic thing about all the Government pussy-footing around on this matter is that the Aust'n Alps have official listing as one of the world's significant biodiversity sites and I doubt that the horse population strengthened the case for listing. I've done two extended walks in the Vic and NSW highlands in the last 3 years and damage to creek-beds and swampy areas by horses was a very noticeable feature of the terrain. Further assessment of the feral horse population is not a mandatory requirement for a serious horse reduction propram to be commenced. It is almost incerdible that nothing was done about the horses in the NPs in the 23 years between 1980 (when I think access to cattle was banned in KNP) and 2003.

[peregrinator]

Giddy_up, it's not correct to say that no further public comment will occur.

The link provided by David Moor(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/protectsnowies/140549Snowies3.pdf ) states that the NSW horse management plan is currently at Stage One. On completion of this stage (reviewing the evidence) public submissions will be invited (Stages Two to Four):

Following the completion of the review, and after considering the recommendations of the Independent Technical Reference Group and the outcomes of the community engagement activities, the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Management Plan will be redrafted, it will be exhibited and a call will be made for public submissions on the draft (Stage Two).

Finally, submissions will be reviewed and the draft Kosciuszko Wild Horse Management Plan amended accordingly (Stage Three). The final plan will be implemented by NPWS (Stage Four).

Similarly, in Victoria time has elapsed for public submissions to the initial stage of its management plan. However, further input will occur when the draft plan is completed. Quoting (from http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks/alpine-national-park/plans-and-projects/victorian-alps-wild-horse-management-plan):

Stage 2 - Release of the Draft Plan for Public Comment
Once the draft plan is completed the community will be invited to comment and make written submissions within a nominated 60 day period. A Community Open House Forum will also be held to provide information on the draft plan and seek input from the community on its contents.

Stage 3 - Finalisation of the Plan 
Parks Victoria and the Roundtable Group will analyse and consider community comments on the draft plan during the preparation of the final plan. A final review will be undertaken by the Wild Horse Technical Reference Group to provide specialist/expert environmental, cultural, social and animal welfare advice on the proposed plan.

It's important to consider both the NSW and Victorian plans together because feral horses have little regard for lines on maps.

[Giddy_up]

Giddy_up, it's not correct to say that no further public comment will occur.

The link provided by David Moor(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/protectsnowies/140549Snowies3.pdf ) states that the NSW horse management plan is currently at Stage One. On completion of this stage (reviewing the evidence) public submissions will be invited (Stages Two to Four):

Following the completion of the review, and after considering the recommendations of the Independent Technical Reference Group and the outcomes of the community engagement activities, the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Management Plan will be redrafted, it will be exhibited and a call will be made for public submissions on the draft (Stage Two).

Finally, submissions will be reviewed and the draft Kosciuszko Wild Horse Management Plan amended accordingly (Stage Three). The final plan will be implemented by NPWS (Stage Four).

Similarly, in Victoria time has elapsed for public submissions to the initial stage of its management plan. However, further input will occur when the draft plan is completed. Quoting (from http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks/alpine-national-park/plans-and-projects/victorian-alps-wild-horse-management-plan):

Stage 2 - Release of the Draft Plan for Public Comment
Once the draft plan is completed the community will be invited to comment and make written submissions within a nominated 60 day period. A Community Open House Forum will also be held to provide information on the draft plan and seek input from the community on its contents.

Stage 3 - Finalisation of the Plan 
Parks Victoria and the Roundtable Group will analyse and consider community comments on the draft plan during the preparation of the final plan. A final review will be undertaken by the Wild Horse Technical Reference Group to provide specialist/expert environmental, cultural, social and animal welfare advice on the proposed plan.

It's important to consider both the NSW and Victorian plans together because feral horses have little regard for lines on maps.

No quite right, but is is correct to say that the "have your say" has been closed on some topics on that public comment page. Which is what I said!!!!!

I also said that we now need to consider all the adjacent areas that have horses in them, as to deal with KNP in isolation achieves nothing.

[peregrinator]

No quite right, but is is correct to say that the "have your say" has been closed on some topics on that public comment page. Which is what I said!!!!!

I also said that we now need to consider all the adjacent areas that have horses in them, as to deal with KNP in isolation achieves nothing.

Sorry, I've now seen the edit to your previous post regarding time allowed for public comment. What you said was indeed correct!!!!!

I think we are pretty much of like mind on the issue. I added the information about Victoria to reinforce the point you made earlier about the futility of eradication occurring only in particular areas. It seems national parks really need to be administered at the national level. Rather absurd to have these parallel studies going on (although better than nothing!).

[icefest]

Aerial culling is fast and effective:

• 3500 dead in 5 days
• Average time to death 8 sec
• 58% dead instantly
• Cost: $40 per head

It'll cost more than $40 peer head in the alpine area but even at 4x it'll still be cheap.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-1 ... ng/4873726

[davidmorr]

Coincidentally, the Federal Department of the Environment is seeking comments on a Draft Recovery Plan for the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community. This covers alpine areas in Tasmania, NSW, Victoria and ACT.

Interestingly it says this in relation to feral horses:

In 2013 Worboys and Pulsford observed the direct impacts of a ‘very large number of horses’ and considered the damage to be comparative to the worst historic domestic grazing pressures that triggered the removal of stock from Kosciuszko National Park in the 1940s.

Comments are open until 3 December.

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/ ... -community


BTW, some new questions have been added to the feral horse conversations:

Have you read the recent article by The Guardian? What do you agree with or disagree with?

Do you agree or disagree that introduced species compete with native animals for food and shelter?

Do you have a topic you would to discuss on Protecting the Snowies?

There have also been quite active discussions in some of the earlier conversations, with the pro-horse lobby seemingly having the numbers if not the logical and provable arguments.

All Australians should have a say, even if you just click the "Agree" or "Disagree" buttons for each comment. It is numbers that count!

https://engage.environment.nsw.gov.au/protectsnowies

Some background reading here:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resou ... owies3.pdf

I was interested to see that it costs $1070 to trap each horse. Aerial culling, it seems, costs as little as $30/animal, and is apparently more humane.

[Hallu]

"Do you agree or disagree that introduced species compete with native animals for food and shelter?"

There shouldn't be any debate on that, like climate change or evolution, there should be scientific evidence of that fact, and no room for arguing =/

[davidmorr]

You would think so, but just as there are climate change deniers, there are people who deny that the horses are doing any damage. Read some of the conversations to see this in action.

There are people that claim the damage is from wild cattle, and that only an expert can tell the difference between a pile of horse dung and a cow pat. Others claim that the damage from pigs is much worse than from horses. One common factor is that these people have only driven on the fire trails, so think what they can see there is what is happening throughout the rest of the park. They conveniently ignore the fact that the horses tend to keep away from roads and humans.

This is why it is essential for bushwalkers to participate and refute these claims. Just clicking on the Agree and Disagree buttons is important as these will be counted to determine the public's sentiment.

[sambar358]

As has been the case in the past with the discussions on the reduction of the numbers of feral horses in various NP's.....policy on this will be guided by the potential negative public reaction to culling and not by what "needs to be done" to manage this issue. While government agencies in-house would favor using a lethal method of control as being the way to go......history has shown that when aerial culling was done in the past albeit briefly the public outcry from some sections of the community was such that I think the NSW Premierof-the-day passionately declared that it would never happen again....and to this stage it hasn't and probably won't in the future as it's seen as "bad politics".

A government that is committed to addressing what they'll acknowledge as a potentially threatening environmental problem is serious about actually doing something then they would see a level of public criticism of a culling program as something to manage to minimize the electoral damage "for the greater good of the Park" rather than shy-away from it as it's "bad for business".....and while this view drives policy on feral horse management going forward nothing will change....apart from there being more feral horses across the NP's and adjacent public land.....and more damage.

And of course any program to manage a potentially damaging feral animal problem should be on-going rather than one-offs which are essentially feel-good exercises that achieve nothing in the long run as while numbers may be reduced in the cull areas in the short term, populations can recover quite quickly and the problem then re-presents. Any strategy for the building wild horse problem that eliminates culling as "politically undesirable" is merely pandering to those who have the ear of the government of the day on this. The capture and removal of a few 100 horses annually for re-housing or sale by brumby runners and contractors clearly is making no impact on feral horse numbers and while it may be the soft non-lethal option it is really just a PR exercise that fails to make any impact even in the short term. But it does keep the pro-horse public off the governments collective backs which seems to be the main purpose here.....and that's not doing the Parks any good at all of course. Cheers

s358

[davidmorr]

The silly thing is that only 34% of the horses captured find new homes. The rest go to the abattoir to become pet food. At $1070 per horse, that's pretty expensive horse meat.

I despair of the current practice of politics where oppositions must oppose everything the government proposes. Means that nothing is done for the good of the country.

[Kainas]

"Do you agree or disagree that introduced species compete with native animals for food and shelter?"

There shouldn't be any debate on that, like climate change or evolution, there should be scientific evidence of that fact, and no room for arguing =/

I took a look. I get the impression that a lot of this is testing the PR waters. They know the truth and what needs to be done, this is all about deciding whether it is worth fighting it out in the media circles.

[sambar358]

In the current Victorian Greater Alpine Parks Management Plan Draft the final paragraph in the discussion on the feral horse issue in the ANP states this : "The high level of public interest and concern over feral horse management is significant. The success of feral horse management will depend largely on whether effective control methods are acceptable to the community."

So clearly here negative press and electoral fall-out from the use of a lethal method of feral horse control is taking precedent over reducing horse numbers with the primary by the best method to minimise their damage to the Park......and while this is the current Victorian positition on feral horses in the greater ANP I would suspect that a similar approach to this issue will be evident in NSW as it has been in the past. Cheers

s358

[maddog]

$31 million is a lot in the continually-being-reduced budget of NPWS.

I will have more to say on this in the conversations when the opportunity arises.

The 2014-2015 Budget for the NPWS is $461.5 million dollars, up from $230 million in the previous year. A 100.7% increase is not a reduction.

http://www.budget.nsw.gov.au/__data/*&%$#! ... imates.pdf

Thought is divided on many issues and the current one is no exception. Ecological puritans, predictably, take a narrow view. As eco-nationalists, they deny the legitimacy of any species they do not consider native. This group is ferocious, but naive, and increasingly their ideology is being questioned. Tim Low has suggested we accept reality and resign ourselves to a ‘new nature’, in which feral animals inevitability play a part (however unwelcome). The ‘rewilding’ movement is the most interesting of all. They suggest surrogates for long lost mega fauna. Camels, elephants, rhinos, lions and komodo dragons are all possibilities to fill vacant ecological niches. Why not heritage horses too?

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... ng/4797634

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher- ... 2cd245af7e

[wander]

Why not heritage horses too?

Because it as an intelligent argument as creationism.

[north-north-west]

Thought is divided on many issues and the current one is no exception. Ecological puritans, predictably, take a narrow view. As eco-nationalists, they deny the legitimacy of any species they do not consider native. This group is ferocious, but naive, and increasingly their ideology is being questioned. Tim Low has suggested we accept reality and resign ourselves to a ‘new nature’, in which feral animals inevitability play a part (however unwelcome). The ‘rewilding’ movement is the most interesting of all. They suggest surrogates for long lost mega fauna. Camels, elephants, rhinos, lions and komodo dragons are all possibilities to fill vacant ecological niches. Why not heritage horses too?

Why not? How about that it's unscientific? How about that they are destructive on a massive scale? If large hard-hoofed animals were a suitable replacement for recently departed species - especially in alpine areas - they wouldn't do the amount of damage they have been proven (for more than a century) to do.

Even one native species lost to the intrusion of exotics is one too many. You can remove every horse, pig, goat, cat, dog, cow, sheep, camel, buffalo, rabbit, fox, Indian mynah, homing pigeon, starling, blackbird, house sparrow & goldfinch from this country and the worldwide continuation of none of those species will be threatened. But once the Corroboree Frog dies out, that's it - like the Thylacine, it won't get a second chance.

[missingdna]

hmmm....without reading the whole "im right " argument....
nags are a introduced pest....breeding unchecked and without natural predators....much like the rabbit....fox...pig...camel...cane toad....politician AND european settler....

[maddog]

Wanda,

It was David Bowman who suggested the elephants may fill an ecological niche - in Nature Magazine no less. He expanded on his ideas in a Lateline interview:

EMMA ALBERICI: And finally, in a recent issue of Nature magazine you wrote an article arguing for the introduction of elephants, of all things, to the Australian landscape as a way of mitigating the bushfire risk. Can you talk us through that thesis?

DAVID BOWMAN: Well absolutely. We know that the megafauna, the giant marsupials, became extinct and there is circumstantial evidence that the loss of these giant animals resulted in changed fire regimes. Now that's still debated, but we certainly know that large animals consume fuel and if you have large animals - not necessarily elephants; we can use goats - if you can consume fuel, it's what I like to call a low emissions fuel management technology. The smoke issue of prescribed burning, the risk of escapes of prescribed burning is forcing a rethink about how we're going to interface communities with bushland. ...We are going to have to completely re-imagine and open our minds up to whatever strategies are going to work. But the old rusted-on approaches of thinking that a bushfire disaster is all about response and recovery, that's completely over. We now have to embrace change on a massive scale...

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/ ... 873911.htm

Bowman suggested elephants whereas Flannery was the ideas man behind komodo dragons. To the best of my knowledge neither are Creationists. Both are generally considered part of the scientific community. If you pay a little more attention you will realise that 'rewilding' is an idea of the scientific community. It is controversial, yes, but by way of contrast, the Creationist believes that the world was created some 4,000 years ago, we live on a young Earth, and mega-fauna and the like is a hoax.

NNW,

Prejudice can be challenged by science. Fire is one thing but all know that feral cats and foxes are bad. Very bad. We do know this, quite certain, aren't we? Then we look a little closer and we realise perhaps not so bad after all. It's a new nature and cute critters fill a vacant niche:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conse ... 2ssvt.html

[Hallu]

lol that last article states a fact that's been known for centuries... First explorers introduce rats (unwilingly) and rabbits (for food) on newly discovered islands. They multiply and invade, destroying vegetation, so they bring cats and foxes. Now the key point in that research is "island". They drew conclusion from small populations on islands, but that doesn't mean you can draw the same conclusion in mainland Australia. Moreover, introducing new species because we think they'll help is always a mistake... History teaches us we never anticipate the behaviour of introduced species in their new environment (the cane toad being the most obvious example).

Now for bushfire control : elephants pass on their knowledge of water pools for their migrations, that's why they live so long. "teaching" them the new locations in Australia would take decades... Not to mention that bushfires are essential to regrowth, native plants evolved to fight it. Granted, with the frequency of bushfires increasing, we've seen that in many cases they can't recover fast enough before the next fire. But I fail to understand how elephants stampeding vegetation is gonna help. Not to mention that African elephants don't live in dense forests, you'd need smaller Asian elephants, such as the ones in Borneo, and they're rare, stealthy and extremely agressive towards humans. That's a stupid idea.

The worst thing we can do is assume we know better than mother nature. The solution to bushfire would have been to stop burning coal like idiots. We have to accept that the climate has changed and that bushfires will be (and already are) gradually more frequent. All we can do is assess the risks and stop building near fire-prone areas.

[maddog]

Hallu,

The study focuses on islands, rather than the mainland, where native populations are generally considered at greater risk of extinction. The smaller the island and the further from the mainland the greater the risk (i.e. island biogeography theory). What it demonstrates is black rats, suffering little or no predation, are a greater threat to the survival prospects of small native mammals than cats and foxes, a finding consistent with the mesopredator release theory. Cats and foxes are playing a positive role controlling black rats and their benefit is greater than their cost. The findings suggest that one should not attempt to control an introduced animal without carefully considering the impact our actions may have. We do, after all, have a new nature.

The study was not concerned with the habits of the early explorers whom did not rate a mention.

As for the mainland, the results of previous studies demonstrate that cats are a problem in arid areas (where rainfall is less than 500 mm p.a.) and not so much elsewhere (island or mainland).

You go on to claim that the introduction of new species is always a mistake. Are you suggesting that the introduction of horses, cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, agricultural grasses and crops, fruit and nut trees, honeybees and even the humble cactus moth, etc., were all a great mistake?

In regards to fire, it is not frequency that is the problem, if anything it is not frequent enough. It is the intensity of the fire that is the problem, raging infernos destroying everything in their path. The thickening of vegetation, in particular, increases the intensity of fire by providing a scaffold of younger trees allowing flames to climb into the canopy of older trees (i.e. crown fires). It is suggested that mega-fauna once reduced the fuel load and after them the aborigines. However the native mega-fauna are gone and aboriginal burning is not what it once was. David Bowman suggested elephants are up to the job, but given the practical difficulties, perhaps we could make do with horses.

And Climatology really doesn’t come into it.

[north-north-west]

I think the relevant phrase for this is something about the cure being worse than the disease.

You bring in a new species, it disrupts the existing ecosystem. How many native species are you prepared to have die out in order to keep all those lovely fluffy little kitties running around in the bush? Seriously.

[maddog]

NNW,

Our lovely fluffy friends are already here.

As has been stated, other than in arid areas, the cat's impact on native mammal extinction rates has been greatly exaggerated. Lots of finger-pointing with little hard evidence. The two main reasons cats have been so destructive in arid areas are: (i) cats do not need access to water as they can get all the moisture they need from their victims (unlike dogs), and (ii) and there is insufficient cover to protect their prey in such country. As was demonstrated by Hanna & Cardillo's study (above), in some areas cats play a positive role in the ecosystem by filling a otherwise vacant niche. This is also relevant to urban / suburban settings, long ago vacated by the Quoll, with whom cats share dietary preferences.

Back to rewilding. Though I do accept the practicality of horses I still prefer the idea of elephants:

[Hallu]

You go on to claim that the introduction of new species is always a mistake. Are you suggesting that the introduction of horses, cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, agricultural grasses and crops, fruit and nut trees, honeybees and even the humble cactus moth, etc., were all a great mistake?

In regards to fire, it is not frequency that is the problem, if anything it is not frequent enough. It is the intensity of the fire that is the problem, raging infernos destroying everything in their path. The thickening of vegetation, in particular, increases the intensity of fire by providing a scaffold of younger trees allowing flames to climb into the canopy of older trees (i.e. crown fires). It is suggested that mega-fauna once reduced the fuel load and after them the aborigines. However the native mega-fauna are gone and aboriginal burning is not what it once was. David Bowman suggested elephants are up to the job, but given the practical difficulties, perhaps we could make do with horses.

Yes all those introductions were mistakes. Horses are destroying the Aussie Alps, wild pigs roam free and are a real pest, sheep destroyed countless native semi-arid vegetation (SW NSW for example), feral bees are a real problem in campgrounds in National Parks, and don't get me started on cows... But mostly they were mistakes because they didn't know they should keep them locked up and not allow them to roam free and multiply. All the settlers had to do is ask the aborigines how to get food on this continent. Instead they murdered them, took their land, and cleared the native flora for grazing, logging, mining and growing crops.

Regarding fire, that is not what scientists said recently in the BBC program "Wildfire" that took place in Australia... They clearly said frequency is the problem. Climate change is bringing more dry and windy episodes, increasing the frequency of the fires from which the native vegetation (and the native fauna caught in the fires) cannot recover.

[Pteropus]

In regards to fire, it is not frequency that is the problem, if anything it is not frequent enough. It is the intensity of the fire that is the problem, raging infernos destroying everything in their path. The thickening of vegetation, in particular, increases the intensity of fire by providing a scaffold of younger trees allowing flames to climb into the canopy of older trees (i.e. crown fires). It is suggested that mega-fauna once reduced the fuel load and after them the aborigines. However the native mega-fauna are gone and aboriginal burning is not what it once was. David Bowman suggested elephants are up to the job, but given the practical difficulties, perhaps we could make do with horses.

Bowman’s suggestion for using elephants for grazing is specifically about managing gamba grass (which has the unfortunate species name Andropogon gayanus). This suggestion is a horses-for-courses idea, so to speak (and pun intended ). I think you will find Bowman’s suggestion is more about opening up debate into a much wider range of pest management options. Of course in the same vein one could suggest bringing in tigers to control sambar and rusa deer but no one would seriously take up such an idea. There is a strong case for allowing dingos to proliferate to control smaller pest species such as foxes and cats, a suggestion that horrifies most graziers. Incidentally, and with some relevance to this discussion is that Bowman states in his paper, “I am mindful that the proposal could be used to justify commercial grazing in fragile ecosystems, an ongoing controversy.” Currently there appears to be little, if any, evidence that grazing by large ungulates reduces fire risk in Australian ecosystems. However, there is plenty of evidence that they do damage and change ecosystems, sometimes irreversibly.