Belconnen

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.

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

Late 2008 a school teacher helped worried children in Epping write to the Minister for the Environment, Mr Jennings, asking him to help kangaroos marooned by development and battered by traffic. Why did DSE allow Wildlife Victoria to spend time and money on a plan to relocate the 21 remaining kangaroos to safe territory, but then secretly kill the kangaroos in a unilateral decision in January this year? Why did DSE, which is also responsible for planning, allow development to trap the kangaroos? A memorial protest will be held for these kangaroos on Sunday 28 March at 2pm at Oleander Drive off McDonalds Rd in South Morang.We the People can do more about this - see inside! See also "Children in Epping tread where politicians fear to go" and "Our State government appears to be on a campaign to eradicate native wildlife from Victoria, especially kangaroos"

Mill Park/South Morang kangaroos

In late 2008 a school teacher helped worried children in Epping write to the Minister for the Environment, Mr Jennings, pleading for his department to look after kangaroos in the area,[1] which were landlocked by Government policy to artificially stimulate human population growth and the associated commercial and housing development.[2]

The children were especially distressed by the frequent sight of injured kangaroos on roads which they tried to cross in efforts to find food and water.

To our knowledge, the Minister never answered the children's emails, but the schoolteacher and children were silenced. Obviously one would write more about this except that it would not be in the interests of the children and their teacher. Why this should be so in Victoria in 2010, I leave to the reader's imagination.

Wildlife Victoria searched for kangaroos which DSE has shot without telling them

McDonalds Rd., South Morang and Bunnings, Mill Park, Feb 13, 2006 (Google Earth) with Inset of local kangaroos caught in further commercial development (Photo Fiona Corke).

Note that this area has changed enormously since the latest google-view of Feb 13 2006, such is the forced pace of change in Australian cities. South of McDonalds Road is where the mob was, and that is now quite heavily built on, with commercial development, including Bunnings. North of McDonalds Rd is largely overtaken by residential development, but there are also kangaroos over there, particularly near the two water tanks that can be seen on the top right hand edge of the area. There are not as many as there used to be. Wildlife rescuers are trying to ascertain with regular monitoring how many may have disappeared from there as well, and if any of these may have been killed. The kangaroos can get some passage through up into the northern area and beyond. Alas that takes them into farming areas where they are likely to also be shot with permits issued by the DSE to farmers.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) dissolved the South Morang Kangaroo Working Group Committee last year, but DSE told Wildlife Victoria that they could submit a relocation plan, although it clearly stated that the plan would have to meet all recommendations. So far these recommendations have all been met and the plan is currently under review with an Ethics Committee that is chaired by a DSE employee.

On Friday 19th March 2010, however, after being questioned by Wildlife Victoria about the disappearance of kangaroos under focus, the Department put out a media release, stating that the kangaroos had been shot in January. The DSE employee who was left continuing to chair the ethics committee had not been informed either.

The grounds given for killing the kangaroos were that development was reducing them to starvation, but Wildlife Victoria says that recipient sites were available for them. Yes, there is land available, because of the depletion of populations due to last year's bushfires in other areas. This relocation option was to be presented before the ethics committee for approval next week.

Why did DSE, which is also responsible for planning, allow the situation which preceded this final tragedy to arise in the first place? Why did they also allow Wildlife Victoria to spend considerable time and money on a plan to relocate these animals to safe territory, then secretly kill the kangaroos in a unilateral decision?

Substantial Wildlife Corridors are still possible and must be created

It would still be possible to create corridors to safeguard Victoria's kangaroo population if it were not for the attitude of the commercially obsessed and development-mad Victorian Government, which seems to intend to get rid of every kangaroo in the State without letting anyone know what it is doing. Since similar attitudes prevail in other States, it seems possible that Australian governments could have plans which will make the kangaroo extinct, for all the public knows.
See also "Children in Epping tread where politicians fear to go" and "Our State government appears to be on a campaign to eradicate native wildlife from Victoria, especially kangaroos"

Secretive elimination of wild kangaroos in South Morang and Mill Park

The Sth Morang kangaroos that people have fought so long to save have been secretly killed by commercial shooters contracted by the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

The kill happened in January, although their relocation was and theoretically still is under review by an Ethics Committee. The chair of that Ethics Committee is a Senior DSE Wildlife employee who was not informed that the kangaroos had been killed.

21 remaining members of the original mob of 30 (depleted by road accidents), which rescuers had been focusing on, had been missing for weeks. Wildlife Victoria Members, Fiona Rowley, Narelle Smith and their northern network, Wildlife Rescuers, had been searching the area. All the while they suspected that the kangaroos had secretly been killed.

After Freedom of Information (FOI) notification and recent questions from Wildlife Victoria, the DSE issued a media release dated 19 March 2010.

The DSE media release [cited below] uses the fact that property development in the area was eliminating these animals' habitat and that they would starve to death to excuse the unilateral kill and implies that relocation was too unsure and costly an option to consider.

Kangaroo defenders say, however, that Wildlife Victoria’s submission to relocate the kangaroos was panning out well. Fiona Rowley had been an effective advocate for a rescue plan and both she and Narelle Smith had been involved in key aspects of the relocation plan and submission, and were keeping up monitoring of the area. The City of Whittlesea and Westfield Shopping Centre were prepared to cover the costs of the relocation, according to Fiona Rowley.

DSE "Out of touch" on wildlife issues

In response to the DSE press release, a distressed Fiona Rowley said:

“No proper study of the effects of relocating kangaroos has ever been undertaken, so how do they know it’s not possible. We were prepared to undertake one and the relocation project was pending approval via an expert panel.

"Money has been spent on statistical consultants, having site assessments done on recipient sites and it was determined by these consultants that the sites were suitable and could accommodate this mob of kangaroos with little to no environmental impact.

"Furthermore the City of Whittlesea and Westfield Shopping Centre were also supportive in relocating the kangaroos and were prepared to cover the costs of this project. The DSE are out of touch with wildlife issues and don’t consider what the community wants or expects in these situations.”

Ms Rowley added:

"In the South Morang Kangaroo Working Group Committee that many of us were involved in over the past few years the DSE admitted to being afraid of public backlash and noted the media attention when hundreds of kangaroos were killed at the Belconnen Naval Transmission site in Canberra 2 years ago. They also admitted on a number of occasions during the working group meetings that they were opposed to relocating these kangaroos as they did not want to set a precedent of relocating kangaroos in Victoria. DSE finally agreed that a relocation plan could be submitted and that it would have to go through an animal ethics committee for approval.

Why is the Department of Sustainability and Environment so cruel, callous, devious and incompetent?

The Department of Sustainability and Environment may have perceived an interest in defeating Wildlife Victoria's attempt to relocate kangaroos because, had this attempt succeeded, it could have been the first of many. The Department would then have been forced to admit that their duty of care towards these indigenous animals involves finding them alternative habitat or ceasing to grant new building permits in affected areas.

There are many groups of kangaroos in similar man-made predicaments - more every day. Kangaroos are high visibility animals (unlike some solitary, smaller creatures which often die unnoticed). Relocating kangaroos requires very noticeable efforts and organisation, drawing even more attention to their plight and government responsibility, cruelty, and over-release of building permits.

The public get very upset when they are confronted with the merciless impact of population growth and development on wildlife and the last thing that DSE wants the public to realise is the extent of the suffering of kangaroos and other wildlife through its already unpopular and unnecessary population growth and development objectives. The public really need to know about this, however.

DSE Victoria is already in trouble for failing to collect and maintain competent wildlife statistics, which means that it has failed to identify threatened and endangered species, let alone fulfill its international obligations to draw up plans. A recent auditor general's report on the matter estimated that it would take the Department nearly 30 years to catch up with its obligations if it continued to allocate so few resources to the task.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment is in charge of all the planning in Victoria and responsible for releasing too many building permits and inviting too many people to come and live in Victoria. To allow the DSE to be responsible for the welfare of kangaroos is like putting the fox in charge of the welfare of hens, a maniac in charge of a child, or a drunk in charge of a bar.

DSE should reimburse Wildlife Victoria and Volunteers involved in relocation efforts for their time

Is DSE going to reimburse the many weeks and months which volunteers have spent doing the department's work for them in researching relocation options and plans? In my view, the volunteers deserve the same hourly compensation as DSE managers would expect for undertaking similar responsibilities. If DSE is prepared to pay shooters rates to kill the kangaroos, it can pay volunteers for their time that it has wasted.

Reimburse Stress and suffering for Wildlife volunteers as well

Some also speak of compensation for pain and suffering - the awful stress of putting yourself out - literally for years - to find a solution for wildlife to a problem caused by incompetent planning - only to be assaulted with the information that the department was apparently not even attending to your input. Those months and years of forgone income, time with children, time maintaining home and fitness, in order to put in time for kangaroos with the Department of Sustainability deserve full compensation, including holidays and penalty rates and medical expenses for stress.

There is a lot we can do about all these wrongs!

Complain

Write a supportive comment under this article.

Email Ron.Waters[AT]dse.vic.gov.au to voice your protest
Email Gavin Jennings, the Minister for the Environment gavin.jennings[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au to let him know how disgusted you are. His phone number is (03) 9888 1910.

Send us copies of emails you send to politicians.

Change your vote!

Join the Animal Justice Party, which is a new political party in Australia that is seeking members in order to become an effective voice for all creatures great and small in every state of Australia.

Alternatively, join one and or vote for both (using preferences) of the two parties which intend to reverse government policy for rapid population growth in Australia. After all, population growth and development are the greatest cause of suffering for our native fauna. The parties are The Stable Population Party of Australia and the New Australia Party. Support Federal ALP member, Kelvin Thomson's population reform plan and vote for him if you are in Thomson's Federal electorate (Wills), which borders on the areas discussed here. You can contact him at (03) 9350 5777 or email him at Kelvin.Thomson.MP[AT]aph.gov.au Tell other MPs that they should get behind Kelvin's plan.

Get the relevant State and Federal Members of Parliament to put pressure on the relevant ministers

The area in question falls under two different State electorates - Yan Yean (administered by Danielle Green MP - danielle.green[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au Phone: (03) 9432 9782) and Mill Park (administered by Lily d'Ambrosio MP - lily.d'ambrosio[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au Phone: (03) 9465 9033 . These members need to tell the Minister for Planning to refuse any new building or clearing permits for the area and to provide safe crossings for animals in extant roads and to stop inviting immigrants to Victoria because there is no room.

The Federal member responsible for this particular area - Scullin electorate - is ALP member, Harry Jenkins: Harry.Jenkins.MP[AT]aph.gov.au Phone: (03) 94678055. He needs to tell the Prime Minister to cut down Australia's immigration because it is causing kangaroos to suffer by driving housing and infrastructure development on indigenous habitat.

Memorial Protest for these victims of DSE and Victoria's overdevelopment and lack of fauna management

A memorial protest will be held in honour of these kangaroos, who became the innocent victims of development and lack of native fauna management by the government department responsible for their wellbeing. It will be held next Sunday 28 March at 2pm at Oleander Drive off McDonalds Rd in South Morang.

Please – tell everyone you can, it’s really important that as many people attend as possible.

Enough is enough; this war against our wildlife has got to stop!

Kangaroo and Wildlife activists and carers hope to see many Victorians there from city and country areas.

The Department's media release in March about the shootings in January

The Department of Sustainability and Environment Media Release re the
"South Morang Kangaroosof 19 March 2010, [3] (reproduced in the "Notes" section of this article), was two months after the event.

It said that DSE had

'humanely put down a group of kangaroos that had been isolated on land at South Morang.' It said that "The welfare and safety issues associated with the capture and relocation of kangaroos were significant” and that “Finding suitable habitat to relocate kangaroos to is also a challenge.”

The choice of the words 'significant' and 'challenge' is interesting. 'Significant' is a useful term for avoiding quantification, comparison or documentation. Why wasn't the decision on the kangaroos scientifically and ethically informed by the relocation study concurrently being carried out? 'Challenge' is a political word that covers a multitude of omissions, including the fact that there was a choice. DSE chose to kill the kangaroos. It chose to deprive them of life and people working on this problem of the opportunity to attempt to save their lives. Victorian observers could be forgiven for seeing this as expedient or cowardly or callous.

One long-time wildlife campaigner wrote:

"I may be wrong/out of line but as I've said before, probably the only way to save some kangaroos is to dart and move them illegally, at night. Government departments that are supposed to protect wildlife almost never help when we ask them to protect animals and seem to take every opportunity to kill them. I cannot help but wonder if there is a criminally corrupt aspect. Someone's brother may be a 'roo shooter. Wildlife carers get nothing for the work they do, but shooters get paid. What is the going price for shooting 20 kangaroos, I wonder, after you split it with someone in a department meant to help the roos?

Of course there must be people in departments that are supposed to protect wildlife who actually do care about animals, but they have to follow orders and the directions from the top seem to be universally callous."

Notes

[1] "in the area": This particular tragedy came to the attention of the public through a mob of about 30 kangaroos which became trapped behind Bunnings/Westfield in Mill Park. This mob was split as the roads became busier with increasing development and population growth. As the other side of McDonalds road is South Morang, they are known as the Sth Morang kangaroos as they were once the same mob. The mob over on the other side has farmland on the other side of the large residential development, but many have become increasingly locked in there as well under a transmission station and Melb Water land.

There are also other isolated and landlocked mobs in Somerton Rd, known as the Somerton mob, (see video) also pockets in Lalor and Bundoora, which are all in trouble.

[2] Most citizens are not aware of the Victorian government policy to invite immigrants from other states and from overseas to live in Victoria - hence the population growth, which drives undemocratic development throughout Victoria.

[3]

Department of Sustainability and Environment Media Release re the
"South Morang Kangaroos

19 March 2010

The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) has humanely put down a group of kangaroos that had been isolated on land at South Morang.

DSE Wildlife manager Ron Waters said this was a difficult decision for everyone involved but the welfare of the kangaroos had to come first.

“The health and safety of these kangaroos was at risk. They were facing dehydration and starvation because of the progressive loss of habitat at the site,” Mr Waters said.

“The site is largely private land and there’s no long term future for kangaroos on this site that has effectively become enclosed by roads and commercial development.”

“DSE had been monitoring the group of about 30 kangaroos closely for a number of years and had hoped that they might naturally disperse from the area as development proceeded.”

“It became clear that despite significant and increasing disturbance at the site, animals were reluctant to disperse naturally and DSE took the tough decision to use professional shooters to humanely destroy them before they starved or were pushed onto adjoining roads.

“The welfare and safety issues associated with the capture and relocation of kangaroos were significant.”

“Finding suitable habitat to relocate kangaroos to is also a challenge.”

Photo by Jill Quirk

The material below comes from the preface of a new report, prepared by Dane Wood on behalf of the Canberra Environment and Sustainability Resource Centre for the ACT Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment. Available from: Canberra Environment and Sustainability Resource Centre, GPO Box 1875, Canberra 2601.

Risks associated with eradicating native plant and animal life

"This report collates recent existing data on the Australian Capital Territory’s biodiversity in order to analyse and scope the capacity of biodiversity in adapting to climate change and global warming. It intends to provide a report that will ultimately assist research and preparation for the ACT State of the Environment Report with the purpose of educating the Canberra and wider ACT communities on the value of biodiversity for the ‘bush capital’ and warning of the risks associated with eradicating native plant and animal life and the consequences related to this."

The data used for this study was drawn from a wide range of sources to ensure the topic was scoped sufficiently to provide accurate results regarding the Territory’s biodiversity and how successfully it has adapted to the changing climate. Statistics regarding flora, fauna, general biodiversity data and bushfire regeneration figures were drawn from the Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research (Australian National Botanic Gardens), the bushfire regeneration monitoring on Farrer Ridge report, the Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Molonglo Catchment Group, Ginninderra Catchment Group, Southern ACT Catchment Group, Countdown 2010 - Local and Regional Authorities and the Canberra Ornithological Group.

Collectively the information we have collected has provided us with sufficient data to produce a report that will inform the Office of the Commissioner of the scope, range and value of the region’s biodiversity within the overall context of climate change adaptation.

We found that in response to bushfires and controlled burning throughout the Australian Capital Territory, the area’s flora was quick to re-establish itself and was closely followed by the return of fauna. This is a positive sign in how the Territory’s biodiversity has adapted over the years to regenerate quickly and has tailored itself to not only suit the changing climate but slow the process of global warming through quick restoration of carbon sequestering flora. Also noticed was the positive impact on the environment by particular native species that have had the opportunity to adapt over millions of years when compared to the less suited domestic species such as cattle and sheep. Kangaroos in particular have proven to be the ideal species to help the natural environment revive and also assist in minimising the hazards which can lead to bushfires. There was sufficient additional literature to support the finding that biodiversity-rich environments not only regenerate faster, but can also play a part in preventing the spread of fire and control fires as a total system.

While the ACT is rich in biodiversity across the scope of flora and fauna, there is cause for concern from the long term perspective of preparation for climate change:

-- Of the 47 species of mammals found in the ACT, less than half are commonly found, with 57.45% of the total declared as uncommon, scarce, insufficiently known or endangered.

-- The reptile population returns similar statistics, with 59.32% of total species declared uncommon, scarce, rare or endangered.

-- Of the amphibians population, 58.82% are uncommon, scarce or endangered, and a further 2 species of amphibians have been declared extinct.

The effects of climate change on the region are expected to include:

-- higher temperatures
-- increased winds in summers months
-- drier average seasonal conditions
-- increased frequency of extreme weather events including storms
-- increased risk of bushfire

Given this, it is particularly relevant to examine the role of biodiversity in adapting to these conditions over time. After the 2003 bushfires the Farrer Ridge Landcare group undertook a study on the restoration of the landscape and found that native flora species recovered quickly. In response to this, there is a need for community education in the role of native species in gardens as a means of maintaining native habitat as the landscape undergoes the changes that will accompany the expected changes in climate.

Bushfire remains a crucial risk in the region. We found that an ecosystem containing a rich biodiversity recovered more quickly and provided greater ecosystem stability during the restoration period than an ecosystem which featured monoculture (such as the pine forests) or where biodiversity was lacking.

This report has concluded that as climate change progresses further, communities within the Australian Capital Territory will notice dramatic changes to the local climate. In order to address this, three key issues regarding the biodiversity of the ACT must be addressed. These are:

-- protecting and nurturing the diverse ecosystems around the ACT
-- better integration of the natural and human environments
-- closely following the 18 year plan set out in the ACT Climate Change Strategy 2007 – 2025.

These points if addressed properly will have a beneficial effect on the local ecosystems and biodiversity and will increase the capacity of our landscapes to adapt to the process of climate change over a period of years."

This is a report well worth reading: short, clear and showing a responsible, knowledgeable and positive regard for our indigenous animals.