Victoria bans Alpine National Park cattle grazing

[cherryw]

About time, putting a stop to this stupid practice. The new Victorian Government has closed the loop hole that allowed this so called scientific study to happen.

Cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park is over, with the new Labor government fulfilling a long-standing election promise to ban the practice.

The government has ended, effective immediately, a scientific trial involving about 60 cattle that was being used to test claims cattle grazing can reduce fire risk in national parks.

The new Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Lisa Neville, will also put a ban on such scientific trials into legislation to stop future governments reversing the policy

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-bans-alpine-national-park-cattle-grazing-20141228-12eo45.html

It was very strange that in the 2010 election the Cattlemen were supported by the Liberal/National party to allow cattle back in to the Alpine area which was not revealed until after the election. It was also very interesting that the leader of the Cattlemen's association was the brother-in law of the head of the Liberal party Ted Baillieu.

Now we can finally get some sense to all this.

Wayne

[MartyGwynne]

At last the cows are now back in their paddocks and not in a national park.

[north-north-west]

It will continue to be a ping pong ball with every change of Government.

[photohiker]

Perhaps.

Hooray for the change anyway!

[highercountry]

Pros and cons to everything.
Great that the cattle have gone, hopefully for good.
Now we are left with the situation where there is no effective management of horse numbers. The cattleman don't like admitting the fact that for as long as they were in the mountains they quite effectively kept feral horse numbers in check.
No cattlemen, no cattle; more feed and available habitat for horses.

[madmacca]

It was very strange that in the 2010 election the Cattlemen were supported by the Liberal/National party to allow cattle back in to the Alpine area which was not revealed until after the election. It was also very interesting that the leader of the Cattlemen's association was the brother-in law of the head of the Liberal party Ted Baillieu.

Wayne

So this is really punishing cattlemen for their spokesman being related to someone on the wrong side of politics to the incumbent government?

[cherryw]

What I am actually saying is that it was all underhanded to start with in the 2010 election and that only because his brother in-law got in that they were allowed back into the high country. The Federal government also kicked them out and then there was this so called scientific study, which no scientist would put their name to. And all because they had a lease of $1 a year to feed their cattle up there. Cheap feed? Nothing really to do with stopping the bushfires.

[madmacca]

What I am actually saying is that it was all underhanded to start with in the 2010 election and that only because his brother in-law got in that they were allowed back into the high country. The Federal government also kicked them out and then there was this so called scientific study, which no scientist would put their name to. And all because they had a lease of $1 a year to feed their cattle up there. Cheap feed? Nothing really to do with stopping the bushfires.

Underhanded?? Both major parties have well-established positions on alpine grazing for many years, as it plays to both sides' natural bases. Nothing hidden here.

By all means have a debate on alpine grazing, but let's just leave the conspiracy theories about who is related to who out of it.

I agree with you there is likely little effect on bushfire risk, although if the incumbent government were really confident of the science of their position, they would let the trial run out and publish the results.

The one scientific study I would genuinely like to see is whether the explosion of deer and feral horses numbers is filling the ecological niche left behind by the departure of cattle. (All are introduced species, and I'm not sure which is least worst).

[north-north-west]

I agree with you there is likely little effect on bushfire risk, although if the incumbent government were really confident of the science of their position, they would let the trial run out and publish the results.

You cannot establish from a period of cattle grazing whether or not regular grazing has an impact on bushfires. Even with a properly surveyed and documented starting point (and, let's face it, there wasn't one when this supposed 'scientific' trial began), there are too many uncontrollable variables that would affect the observations.
There are studies going back over a century as to the impact of cattle grazing on vegetation in the alpine and sub-alpine zones, and the impact of different types of vegetation on fires (and vice versa). If the pro-grazing people would actually read all this material with an open mind they'd realise they don't have a leg to stand on.

I won't bother to bring up the question of why, if grazing is so beneficial, the Kosciuszko NP hasn't burnt to ground regularly since they kicked the cattle out.

[CaptainC]

Yup, Kosciusko NP kicked the cattle out in 40's or 50's.

[Hallu]

In the French Alps you can clearly see the effects of cattle grazing, huges areas around the farms are devoided of flowers, when it rains the soil they stampede turns into deep mud, and there are electric fences everywhere around them that hikers have to handle to go through (which means no other animals inside the fences except marmots and rodents), and yes it's in NPs as well. I like French cheese and the sound of cow bells as much as the next guy, but there's plenty of space for the cows outside NPs, given that France has such a pathetic number/total area of NPs compared to other developed countries. It feels like cattle grazing in NPs is a 150 year old problem, it already occured when Yellowstone NP was created in the US, and I find it utterly wrong that it is still debated to this day. We have accepted that predators like wolves or big cats shouldn't be shot in NPs (they were shot to allow herbivores to thrive, which now seems like an absolutely crazy idea, as they became pest), it's time everyone accepted farming under any form has no place in them either.

[cherryw]

I don't think that the fight is over yet. The Cattlemens Association are pushing hard to not have this law go through. If it is defeated then it is a sad day for the high country. If the cattle are allowed back into the high country then maybe they are charged a correct amount to do this and not the small sum that they were charged $1 a year.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/alpine-national-park-cattle-grazing-still-undecided-20150426-1mtfmw.html

Wayne

[Lophophaps]

If the cattle are allowed back into the high country then maybe they are charged a correct amount to do this and not the small sum that they were charged $1 a year.

That's a thought. User pays, lifters and leaners and all that. Maybe the cattle could be required to pay $37/night to sleep on the camping platforms.

Conservation does not register with many people. Numbers do, so let's look at economics, like water and tourism. Falls Creek in summer is deserted; Main Range towns and road heads are traffic jams. To some extent this is due to the geography of being close to big peaks. But surely the flowered landscape appeals more than than the recovering slopes of the Victoran high country. Brumbies and other ferals in both states do not assist. The French experience is illustrative of what might happen here if the slopes degrade. Not bon at all.

[cherryw]

If the cattle are allowed back into the high country then maybe they are charged a correct amount to do this and not the small sum that they were charged $1 a year.

what I meant to say was if they had to pay the standard rate for agistment then they would likely abandon this as it would cost them too much. I do not want to see them back in the high county ever along with feral horses, deer and others.

Wayne

[Lophophaps]

what I meant to say was if they had to pay the standard rate for agistment then they would likely abandon this as it would cost them too much. I do not want to see them back in the high county ever along with feral horses, deer and others.

Your words were and are quite clear. Do you have any idea how much it would cost for agistment? This website
http://www.eques.com.au/EQforum/showthread.php?t=16236
says $5/week in 2010. I'd go one step further and base the alpine agistment cost on how much rehabilitation costs. The alpine rehab costs would be many times more than $5/week, and so high as to make alpine grazing uneconomical.

[Earwig]

Legislation has been passed banning grazing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-06/alpine-grazing-ban-victoria-fishers-shooters-party/6448608

[GBW]

Great news. Think I'll celebrate with some roast beef!

[north-north-west]

T-Bone. A good thick rare steak, with mushroom and pepper sauce, thick crinkle cut chips, salad and a nice Chianti . . .

[Travis22]

I was afraid to open this thread upon seeing it had recent comments.

I still have my doubts the ban will stick and it seriously does my head in.

I shall have a quiet whiskey tonight and continue to hope this isnt too good to be true.

Travis.

[cherryw]

Let's hope that it is now dead and buried. No more cattle in the high country!!!

[Kinsayder]

Great news, very happy with the ALP on this one.

Slightly off topic, I did notice that they have also found some money in the state budget for parks. The Age put it as "Campers and day trippers get better toilets, paths and buildings in popular parks, with $11 million tipped in over four years." Does anybody know what this means or where it will be directed?

[north-north-west]

Probably means the tourist sites and walks in the Grampians will get flashed up even more while absolutely nothing is done about weed or feral animal control anywhere.

[paidal_chalne_vala]

THE VNPA lobbied the State Govt. sex party MLA to vote against the mountain cattlemen's lobby. It worked.