The ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment engaged four “experts” to assist her in resolving “six” critical questions relating to the enclosed grasslands at the Belconnen Naval Transmission Station (BNTS). 
 

Animal Liberation critiques the final report of this “expert” panel: 

Horse Racing Kills

Melbourne Cup Day. Leafleting outside Canberra Racecourse

For the past few years, Animal Liberation ACT has held a presence outside the Canberra Race Course on Melbourne Cup Day as part of the ‘Horse Racing Kills’ campaign.  We find it’s a good excuse to dress up in our Sunday best and at the same time bring attention to the plight of race horses.  This year (November 2007), we handed out over 2000 copies of Animal Liberation Victoria’s ‘Don’t be Fooled by the Glamour’ brochure which explains the hidden secrets of the horse racing industry.

Unfortunately whilst we were protesting that afternoon, silence fell over Flemington racecourse after an accident ended with Bay Story being put down on the main straight. The horse collided with Bling Bling about 140m from the finish line, sending both animals crashing through the barriers. Bling Bling lay motionless on the track, but Bay Story tragically staggered on towards the line with its crushed left hind leg sagging underneath.

Flemington Melbourne Cup Day November 2007

Stewards quickly erected sheets to block the crowd's view of the horses as officials rushed to the scene.  Many punters couldn't watch, while others wept as the drama unfolded.

For full details of the campaign, go to http://www.horseracingkills.org

This must never happen again

A 'humanely' killed Joey retreived
during the Googong protests of 2004 

History
On the night of 11th of July 2004, Environment ACT sent commercial kangaroo shooters into the Googong Dam catchment area, a Fauna Reserve. Shooters were instructed to kill between ‘800 and 1100’ Grey Kangaroos. No reasonable community consultation had taken place. Environment ACT gave a number of reasons to justify the kill, but none were able to be substantiated.

First, Environment ACT claimed that kangaroos were the cause of erosion, effecting water quality. The kangaroos were given the entire blame for the erosion. No mention or blame was portioned to livestock from properties adjoining the dam area. Soft hoofed animals like kangaroos do far less damage than hard hoofed livestock. However, it was the kangaroos who were being blamed.  When this was pointed out to Environment ACT, they next claimed the kangaroos were starving, and so needed to be slaughtered. The kangaroos where not starving. This could easily be seen from photos and video footage taken around the time of the proposed slaughter. To claim they were starving made no sense as kangaroos are highly mobile and will move on once food is running low. The Googong kangaroos are NOT a captured population. Environment ACT next claimed that kangaroos were affecting water quality by causing algal blooms. Neighboring properties with run off/spillage from septic tanks and overgrazing of livestock did not rate a mention. Finally, Environment ACT claimed that the kangaroos would create weed infestations which again has no scientific basis. If anything, removing kangaroos would only further damage the already impoverished soils of Googong by robbing them of much needed nutrients that the kangaroos put back into the biomass. Two unsuccessful meetings were held between groups including the Wildlife Protection Assn. of Australia Inc (WPAA), Animal Liberation ACT (ALACT), Wildcare Queanbeyan, the RSPCA and Environment ACT.  

Options canvassed at these meetings by WPAA, ALACT and Wildcare included:

• Geotext the erosion prone areas. (Geotext fabric is used extensively on Fraser Island, building sites, and other erosion prone areas worldwide)

• Fencing of sensitive areas to protect other vulnerable species

• Sacrifice crops

• Hand feeding until situation improves

Anger expressed on the dam wall for all to seeNone of these options were accepted as being appropriate by Environment ACT. At these meetings and on numerous other occasions, WPAA and ALACT requested access to the science that the cull was being based on. All requests were denied.

At the time, Googong Dam was on land owned by the Commonwealth, and jointly managed by NSW National Parks and Environment ACT. No evidence existed of a Management Plan, or were there any indications that a plan was being developed. This was the first time that NSW National Parks had ever issued kill permits in a Protected Area. It was also the first time they have used commercial kangaroo shooters in this manner. According to NSW Department of Environment and Conservation literature,‘Commercial use of kangaroos is prohibited within national parks and other reserved areas and can only be undertaken on private landholdings’. After some investigation, it was discovered that NSW National Parks were developing management plans for new National Parks, to provide commercial kangaroo shooters access to areas previously considered protected. The effect of this is that nowhere in NSW or the ACT would kangaroos be safe. There will be no refuge areas left for the protection of our national emblem and icons.

Googong Foreshores Wildlife Sanctuary Freedom of Information Request
As Environment ACT had refused our requests to view the science suporting the kill, Animal Liberation ACT conducted an FOI. It revealed the following:

• The ACT Government did not advise, refer, or brief its Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) before planning or commencing the cull.

• The Management plan stating objectives and goals of the cull was not completed until two weeks after the cull had started.

• Nowhere in the Management Plan does it analyse any existing data that might help establish the extent to which the kangaroos may be contributing to the depletion of groundcover or the extent to which kangaroos may be contributing to nutrient run-off into the reservoir.

• A Brief to the Minister dated 18th June 2004 advises the Minister to tell the media that the ‘cull’ is based on ‘sound land management practice, clear objectives and performance monitoring’, even though the Brief admits that the relevant research has not been finished. 

• A Brief to the CEO, Environment ACT dated 8^th July 2004 states: ‘If the current NSW (Googong) trial is successful, the ACT could consider introducing commercial culling in the future’. Animal Liberation believes this to be the true reason for the cull as the commercial kangaroo killing industry freely admits they are having difficulty filling their quotas due to falling kangaroo numbers.  If the commercial shooters are allowed into the ACT, our kangaroo numbers will follow the same fate as those in outback NSW.·        

 Damage to protest sign 'Stop Roo Cull'Should read 'No Plan Just Slaughter'

In response to the senior rangers request to pursue kangaroo culling at Googong, Don Fletcher (ACT Government advisor on Kangaroo issues) states ‘The groundcover is consistently lower where roos are freely shot and sheep are grazed on neighboring properties than on Googong...Where herbivores are regulated by nature the pasture biomass is higher than where they are managed as pests’.  

Fletcher also notes ‘that often kangaroos are managed to protect groundcover but groundcover recovers with the first rain, regardless of kangaroo density’.

In an email to Paul Higginbotham (Environment ACT) dated 2 June 2004, Don Fletcher expresses astonishment that the cull is going ahead ignoring all his advice that‘it did not meet Environment ACT policy standards for pest management (as it was not about impact reduction, just ‘killing roos and eating them’) and expressing doubt that it would achieve their hopes re groundcover and biodiversity. Fletcher also notes that ‘at Tidbinbilla, after 10 years of shooting stopped, the cycle of groundcover continued with very little change’.

 Bill Woodruff (Environment ACT) was given information that the kangaroo population at Googong had decreased by 65% during the period of 2001 to 2004, yet he still feels a cull is necessary despite being advised by Don Fletcher what Googong really needs is ‘an end to the drought and recovery from the March 2003 storm damage’.

Emails being circulated around Environment ACT as late as 29 May 2004 are still stating that the cull must go ahead due to ‘high kangaroo numbers’ even though this has been debunked.·         An email dated 29 June 2004 from Nicole Webb (Environment ACT’s wildlife ecologist) to ranger Kristy Gould advised ‘I am unconvinced that you will be able to ascribe any changes you do see to a change in the kangaroo grazing pressure’.

On 6 July2004 Bill Woodruff confirms that the Minister has approved the cull.  This is despite the lack of science, misinformation about kangaroo numbers and expert advice that the cull would achieve nothing.Other findings under the FOI include:·         

• The dubious nature of selection of the kangaroo shooter as there was no transparent selection process.

• The non sensical reasoning for a cull, as when food for the kangaroos becomes scarce, they would move on anyway averting the need for a cull.

• That Wildcare rescuers were required to leave the reserve by 10.30pm each night of the cull, thereby leaving any Joeys found after that time to be killed by so called ‘humane’ brain bashing.

• The applications made to ‘Harm Protected Fauna in New South Wales’ (section 121 Occupiers licence) are dated 21 July 2004 and 26 July 2004.  The cull commenced on 11 July 2004, some two weeks earlier.

The reason why Maxine Cooper (CEO Environment ACT) would not let ALACT, WPAA, Wildcare view the science that the cull was being based on was because it did not exist.  

Instructions were given that ‘shooting is to cease in the presence of the public, media or protesters. AL ACT can confirm that shooting did indeed continue despite these instructions. 

humanely dispatched Joey at GoogongMedia Release by Chief Minister Jon Stanhope ‘Kangaroo Cull Essential and Humane’  22 July 2004

This release was made in complete ignorance of the debate underway in his Department about whether the slaughter should proceed in the absence of any scientific evidence to support the assumption that it will have any benefit for the water supply. The brief to the Minister DID advise him that any scientific basis for the cull was not expected for a few years yet.

Further, the press release is extremely misleading when it asserts that AWAC ‘recognizes’ the Governments reasons for the cull as AWAC was never consulted or briefed prior to the cull.  

Conclusion
Depite our best efforts, in the end, approximately 600 kangaroos were slaughtered. The slaughter (and our reponse to) received widespread national and international media coverage. The cull and our FOI embarressed to the Stanhope ACT Government. Environment ACT is currently developing a Management Plan for the area. Animal Liberation has provided imput to the proposed plan, but we fear that kangaroo welfare will not be taken seriously.

Watch this space!

 *************************************************************************************************************** 

In the book, KANGAROOS, MYTHS AND REALITIES published 2005 by The Australian Wildlife Protection Council inc, Richard Jones former NSW MLC in his Epilogue says: 

“Australia has the unenviable record of having the worst record of recent mammal extinction of any country in the world. For over two hundred years now, we have been conducting what amounts to a war on our wildlife. After all this destruction, which is still continuing at an alarming pace, we still allow the largest land based wildlife slaughter on earth.”

humanely dispatched Joey at Googong