Horses and heritage

[stry]

Maddog, thank for those population increase figures away back. I'm not in a position to query the methodology by which the numbers were arrived at, because I don't know what that methodology was.

If we accept that rates of increase are as modest as stated, the population would be barely hanging on, requiring only a change of circumstances for the growth to cease, or slide into decline.

If this is in fact the case (and I'm not suggesting that it isn't, or contradicting what you have supplied ), surely control/reduction would be very simple once the pollies grasped the nettle of uninformed public opinion.

Certainly those numbers do not imply a doubling of numbers every few years.

[mikethepike]

On behalf of my bushwalking club I have been following this topic and the background docos for a while with the intention of contributing something to help the NSW Government draw up its next Five Year Plan with conservation of KNP as our primary concern. I have to say that I am finding the process a bit frustrating. I started out writing a submission (snail mail as in old fashioned days or emailed) but apparently the idea is to submit views on different topics, some questions closed in September and others going to the end of November. I'm afraid that most of the questions they seek views on leave me a bit flabbergasted. Take these for example:
"Why are the Snowy Mountains important to you?
What do wild horses mean to you?
What is more important to consider- the estimated population of wild horses or the impact of wild horses on the National Park? or both?
Do you agree that introduced species compete with native animals for food and shelter?"

It almost makes me question if NSW NP&W even has a statement of purpose to help direct its efforts. Technical answers driven by popular opinion and chance observations rather than science? The road to answers clouded by emotion? Environments not considered for their own sake? A talk fest where written submissions would be just as useful and at a fraction of the cost? And just how much is all this costing? I'm sorry but I don't get it. If the idea of saving plant communities etc is the purpose of National Parks, isn't the answer more self-evident than some of their posed questions would suggest?

Just supposing the authorities conclude that it is desirable to continue reducing horse numbers and then maintain them at that new level, the pros and cons of the different existing methods are well known and aerial 'culling' is the cheapest option and over 400 horses were dispatched in this way in the early C20 in a single year. I appreciate the objections to this method (but sorry I care about plant communities even more) but even if they persisted solely with mustering and trapping as in the past five years, 4000 more horses could be removed for $5-6 million using the same methods - this figure allowing for the cost to climb above $1074/head as the horse population declines. If we are serious about reducing the impact of horses on the environment, then even if a cheap way of inducing permanent infertility were to become available (eg by dart delivered hormonal concoction), the treated horses would still be free to trample vegetation for maybe a decade or much longer depending on their age so it seems a poor possible future option.

I think that, as a conservation philosophy and action plan, it is much better that the least disturbed of the different representative areas be fully protected while the remainder still has a much reduced population of feral horses rather than for the whole area to be poorly or half protected. I don't accept that it not possible to fence horses and not restrict the movement of native animals as claimed by NP&W. The cost of fencing is high but I'll bet you would find volunteers to do much of it.
Otherwise the KNP and other Alpine NPs might as well end up being managed like the national Parks in Britain where farming and conservation often share the same land.

[climberman]

mike - frustrating, but silly of parks to ignore the fact that emotions do count for things in managing community assets.

Keep huts vs pull them down

managed tracks vs unmanaged tracks vs constructed tracks

'Wilderness' vs wild places

brumbies vs feral horses

The Snowy Mountains feral horse issue will not be won on science, for any viewpoint.

[mikethepike]

frustrating, but silly of parks to ignore the fact that emotions do count for things in managing community assets.

Thanks climberman and that is why I calculated the $6 million figure which is not an unreasanable operating cost IMO although I wonder if the Gov't is seeking mandate to take on a more aggressive 'culling' program. I am very sympathetic to the heritage view but back to the horses, am I right in assuming that the horses causing the most concern are at large primaily in the snow gum (only eucalyptus species) country? While the snow gum country is exceedingly beautiful, I think that in terms of unique plant spp and plant associations at risk, then it is the alpine vegetation (above the tree line) that is the most special. Do horses still wonder into these areas can anyone tell me? If so, then this surely ought to be the first priority to be addressed once the review is completed.

The Snowy Mountain Riders consider that objections to them riding in the Park are maybe driven by other peoples' jealosy. I can't think of a more beautiful place to ride in Australia than though the open areas of the snow gum country and do wonder whether there is not room even for commercial horse trekking in parts of the ranges. Maybe the whole of the high country should be re-evaulated to see how different uses can all be better accomodated and managed. The top priority though is surely to fully protect identified high quality tracts of vegetation from further damage by reducing horse numbers and then having a plan to not let the population recover.

[maddog]

Maddog, thank for those population increase figures away back. I'm not in a position to query the methodology by which the numbers were arrived at, because I don't know what that methodology was.

If we accept that rates of increase are as modest as stated, the population would be barely hanging on, requiring only a change of circumstances for the growth to cease, or slide into decline.

If this is in fact the case (and I'm not suggesting that it isn't, or contradicting what you have supplied ), surely control/reduction would be very simple once the pollies grasped the nettle of uninformed public opinion.

Certainly those numbers do not imply a doubling of numbers every few years.

G’day Stry,

In the absence of a massive aerial extermination effort, a greatly enhanced brumby running operation, a fertility control program, or some combination of methods, KNP’s Brumby population is in no danger of decline until the next mega-fire passes through. Growth has been slow but steady.

It is worth noting no credible evidence has been produced to justify claims, made earlier in this thread, that the number of Brumbies is doubling every few years. The failure to produce justification for such claims is not surprising, as large herbivores do not breed like rabbits.

Excluding the probability of mega-fire at some time in the not to distant future, the absence of an effective control strategy makes it reasonable to expect numbers will keep growing until they match the carrying capacity of the park. On the subject of mega-fires ABC’s Catalyst program ‘Earth of Fire’ puts the KNP Brumby issue in perspective.

[climberman]

frustrating, but silly of parks to ignore the fact that emotions do count for things in managing community assets.

Thanks climberman and that is why I calculated the $6 million figure which is not an unreasanable operating cost IMO although I wonder if the Gov't is seeking mandate to take on a more aggressive 'culling' program. I am very sympathetic to the heritage view but back to the horses, am I right in assuming that the horses causing the most concern are at large primaily in the snow gum (only eucalyptus species) country? While the snow gum country is exceedingly beautiful, I think that in terms of unique plant spp and plant associations at risk, then it is the alpine vegetation (above the tree line) that is the most special. Do horses still wonder into these areas can anyone tell me? If so, then this surely ought to be the first priority to be addressed once the review is completed.

The Snowy Mountain Riders consider that objections to them riding in the Park are maybe driven by other peoples' jealosy. I can't think of a more beautiful place to ride in Australia than though the open areas of the snow gum country and do wonder whether there is not room even for commercial horse trekking in parts of the ranges. Maybe the whole of the high country should be re-evaulated to see how different uses can all be better accomodated and managed. The top priority though is surely to fully protect identified high quality tracts of vegetation from further damage by reducing horse numbers and then having a plan to not let the population recover.

Impact can be seen above the treelike above dead horse gap.

Lots of impacts to bogs, swamps and creeks.

[Nuts]

Tin Mine Hut, that area is 'alpine'? I'd imagine they move with the watercourses over summer, fouling them as they dry (like pigs)? Icefest's link was interesting, hints at the huge cost of trying to realistically maintain large numbers. There is really only one answer it seems... without science or emotion, given the costs of 'soft' measures, i'm sure the managers know the budget realities without any public submission.

[mikethepike]

Impact can be seen above the treelike above dead horse gap.

Lots of impacts to bogs, swamps and creeks.

That is the most obvious visual impact of their damage for sure. I've seen a lot of it in the Vic Alps and Pilot area. I've walked N from DHG but wasn't so aware of horse damage and we saw no horses until well N of Kosciusko but I may not have had my eyes open enough on the first days of that trip when the pack seemed too heavy and I was wishing that I was fitter.

[Allchin09]

An article on feral horses in the Snowies. It's disturbing to see that the "cannibal horse" story that had been mentioned in conversation over on the NPWS site might actually be true!

http://theconversation.com/the-grim-sto ... rses-31691

[maddog]

An article on feral horses in the Snowies. It's disturbing to see that the "cannibal horse" story that had been mentioned in conversation over on the NPWS site might actually be true!

http://theconversation.com/the-grim-sto ... rses-31691

Amazing. A population of herbivores suddenly turns to cannibalism once it is realised their numbers are growing far more slowly than originally speculated. On a serious note, it sounds like it’s only a matter of time and brumbies will start eating bushwalkers.

[icefest]

Amazing. A population of herbivores suddenly turns to cannibalism once it is realised their numbers are growing far more slowly than originally speculated. On a serious note, it sounds like it’s only a matter of time and brumbies will start eating bushwalkers.

While I don't appreciate the way you said it, I think I understand what you're trying to say. This is my interpretation of the incident:

A horse dies with relatively full bowels. It's halfway through winter and it doesn't have huge amount of fat reserves left and has started breaking down muscle. It's cold and the body does not decompose.
A carnivorous scavenger arrives and tears open the abdominal cavity and eats several of the more nourishing organs (perhaps liver,spleen, or heart). In doing so it tears open the stomach or small intestine.
Other horses walk past, now hungrier than they have ever been before, as feral horse numbers have never been higher.
They can smell the feed left in the bowels even though the beginnings of decomposition have left other unpleasant smells.

One or two sniff the dead horse.

Over a week, more and more horses follow the trail, adding their smells to the environment.

Finally, a couple horses, reassured by the decidedly horsey smells accumulated over the past few weeks nibble at the exposed semi-digested herbage.
Two then walk by and document 'Cannibalism

I'm not saying this was the cause of the incident, but I'm hesitant to disregard the entire story (I'm also skeptic that we know the whole story).

[Nuts]

An article on feral horses in the Snowies. It's disturbing to see that the "cannibal horse" story that had been mentioned in conversation over on the NPWS site might actually be true!

http://theconversation.com/the-grim-sto ... rses-31691

Amazing. A population of herbivores suddenly turns to cannibalism once it is realised their numbers are growing far more slowly than originally speculated. On a serious note, it sounds like it’s only a matter of time and brumbies will start eating bushwalkers.

Cannibalism is an Ed herring

The rest of the discussion I find interesting. The graph, if based on fact, pretty much gives answers (or puts them in a form) that should really be enough to satisfy both sides, conservationists and animal lovers.

Sounds like if the pollies and various activists would just stand aside , park managers have well covered all they need to do their job? I'm with HC on distaste at killing animals (of any sort,,, stomped on a mouse without thinking the other night, It was a knee-jerk reaction but I felt awful ) but if the numbers are right, the method of management should.. really be left to P&W professionals. How and when (& if) they choose. I blame the www for putting so many obstacles- voters ./c misplaced emotion in their way.

[Nuts]

Screen Shot 2014-09-23 at 10.07.25 PM.png (453.02 KiB) Viewed 101186 times

[geoskid]

Cannibalism is an Ed herring

I see what you did there mate.

A horse is a horse, of course, of course
And no-one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous MR Eeeeeeed. ( Ya gotta sing it)

[Nuts]

Thought i'd give myself a laugh, just in case there were no ol timers (or 5yo'lds) around... we really should just stick to a display of outrage, that'll change the world

[geoskid]

Thought i'd give myself a laugh, just in case there were no ol timers (or 5yo'lds) around... we really should just stick to a display of outrage, that'll change the world

.

Amen. We could use the hiatus to talk about the importance of an accurate description of the world, before attempting devising a course of action - that could be novel.

Oh ,silly me,I forgot, we live in a democracy that is governed by feelings based on inaccurate descriptions of the world.

No wonder my kids think I'm full of *&%$#!.

Meh, Ride on Bro'

[north-north-west]

Thought i'd give myself a laugh, just in case there were no ol timers (or 5yo'lds) around... we really should just stick to a display of outrage, that'll change the world

.
Amen. We could use the hiatus to talk about the importance of an accurate description of the world, before attempting devising a course of action - that could be novel.

Our civilisation and way of life change the world faster than it can be studied, known and described. Kind of makes doing anything to fix the problems difficult.

[maddog]

Local journalist Andrew Page discusses the claim of cannibal brumbies in the KNP. The clip includes features a highly critical Peter Cochran of the Snowy Mountains Bush Users Group, the sceptical local vet Mike Mesley, and one of the academics, Don Driscoll, defending his claims.

[maddog]

[stry]

Uh Huh. Academics versus an alleged bush user and a vet. in a difference of opinion promoted (fomented?) by a journalist. I won't have any difficulty apportioning credibility between those two sides.

[icefest]

Local journalist Andrew Page discusses the claim of cannibal brumbies in the KNP. The clip includes features a highly critical Peter Cochran of the Snowy Mountains Bush Users Group, the sceptical local vet Mike Mesley, and one of the academics, Don Driscoll, defending his claims.

This would be easier with a transcript.

I'm not sure how this video makes any new points.

Andrew Page (with his "expert" opinion) states that to be a cannibal you need to kill the thing you are eating (and that this must be for survival). This is clearly wrong.

Peter Chochran doesn't really add to the discussion at hand. All he says is that one even of horse cannibalism would not make all horses cannibals.
His logic: humans have been cannibals in the past but that one event does not make all humans cannibals. As horses will not eat meat unless starved they can't all be called cannibals.

Mike Mesley (a local vet):
States that the is no past evidence of horses eating meat (but that if it happened then they would've been eating the grass in the intestines of the dead horses).


Incidentally, there are numerous reports of horses eating meat

[FootTrack]

This would be easier with a transcript.

I'm not sure how this video makes any new points.

Andrew Page (with his "expert" opinion) states that to be a cannibal you need to kill the thing you are eating (and that this must be for survival). This is clearly wrong.

Peter Chochran doesn't really add to the discussion at hand. All he says is that one even of horse cannibalism would not make all horses cannibals.
His logic: humans have been cannibals in the past but that one event does not make all humans cannibals. As horses will not eat meat unless starved they can't all be called cannibals.

Mike Mesley (a local vet):
States that the is no past evidence of horses eating meat (but that if it happened then they would've been eating the grass in the intestines of the dead horses).

I agree with you icefest. I think this video got far too caught up on the definition of the word "cannibal" and how Driscoll and Banks had no more evidence to show.

My interpretation after reading the article was that the authors were questioning the welfare of feral horses in the snowy mountains because they'd seen horses eating from inside the abdominal cavity of a dead horse and that this was likely due to a lack of available feed in the high country and increased competition due to growing populations. Yet this video seemed to center on Driscoll and Banks' use of the word "cannibal". Cochran commented that Driscoll and Banks were making "the suggestion that (all) horses are cannibals". This is simply incorrect. The authors only stated that they'd seen a small group of horses eating the intestines and/or its contents of a dead horse in KNP. They made no claims as to what the dietary preferences of horses are in general. In fact, Cochran even said that under "extreme conditions" horses may eat meat which seems to support Driscoll and Banks' initial suggestion.

Mesley, and Page in particular, also persistently stated that Driscoll and Banks' claims lacked sufficient evidence. I understand that this form of (anecdotal) evidence is one of the weakest forms possible and as Mesley said, "we can only take their word for it". However, this article was published on a website designed for discussion, was not passed off as peer-reviewed literature and Driscoll and Banks had already previously stated in their original writing that they had no further documentation to add. There were no cover-ups going on here. I'm not sure what Page's point was in focusing on this; it seemed like old news to me. This piece was supposed to be a discussion point; it was not intended to be used as hard-lined evidence. What's more, it is not an unthinkable set of circumstances that are being proposed here.

Lastly, let's not forget Cochran has a vested interest in this topic and is likely always going to oppose it with strong, colourful language regardless of his opinion on the environment. He runs "Cochrane Horse Treks" up in the high country which sells itself on the idea of being able to ride horses over high plains and through snowgums with brumbies, in a "Man From Snowy River" type fashion.

[wander]

Mikethepike, I share your frustration with the consultative path being used by NPWS. So frustrating and obtuse I gave up contributing.

I'm not convinced it is not structured to achieve a predetermined outcome.

[RFG]

Online consultation has been extended until 12 December. Opportunity to have your say via surveys and questionnaires as well. Get involved.
https://engage.environment.nsw.gov.au/protectsnowies

Need some rational contributions there people.

[RFG]

Have you joined the wild horse conversation?
Time is running out to have your say with just nine days left to have your say on the review of the Wild Horse Management Plan for Kosciuszko National Park.

Have you joined more than 20,000 people who have visited the website, completed a survey, contributed a story, generated discussion or downloaded a discussion guide?

There’s an All Parks Annual Pass worth $190 to be won – go in the draw by returning your Kitchen Table Discussion feedback form or lodge your feedback online.

We need your input to help, along with advice from the Independent Technical Reference Group, develop a new draft Wild Horse Management Plan which will be placed on public exhibition for further consultation next year.

The more input we receive now; the more informed our new draft.

There is a raft of new discussions opening the final days of the online consultation.

· You can now upload and share your stories, pictures and videos about wild horses and your experiences in Kosciuszko National Park online

· Take part in a short survey

· Download or complete online the Kitchen Table Discussion Guide, it’s a way to have a guided conversation about the Wild Horse Management Plan at home, in your office, in your community group or classroom and then provide this feedback to the review process.

· Contribute to new discussions on whether we should keep horses out of particular parts of the park or what happens if we do nothing? And what do you think of brumby running and roping?

· View the interactive infographic profiling the presence of wild horses in Kosciuszko National Park since the Man from Snowy River was published.

· View photos of the recent 21st Century Townhall Meeting, an innovative consultation approach drawing together a large group of people including stakeholders and members of the general public to examine the Wild Horse Management Plan and provide input for the redraft.

When does the online consultation close?
On Friday 12 December at 5pm, the online consultation will close after five months.

What does the online consultation examine?
We have explored subjects like fertility control, trapping and removal, rehoming, establishing a sanctuary, fencing off environmentally sensitive areas, the objectives of the plan, environmental studies, population estimates, wild horse biology and reproduction, as well as the consultation process.

CLICK HERE to join the conversation.

You can comment anonymously by registering a username or screen name. Your registration details will not be disclosed and will be stored in line with government privacy protocols. Only your screen name will be displayed to other users.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[maddog]

Minister rules out aerial culling of brumbies before KNP wild horse management plan released. Read more.

[wander]

Pollies are getting more and more scared to make the hard decisions. A weakness of democracy.

[Hallu]

It's not a weakness of democracy, it's just a weakness of that minister. Getting tough on refugees was a hard (and stupid) decision and yet it was made... It's just that Australia rarely makes tough environmental decisions. It's funny to see that small and poor countries like Ecuador, Costa Rica or Bhutan have the guts to make those decisions, but that modern industrial countries like Australia, who can more easily afford to put into action those decisions, never make them. The culprits ? Industrial and tourism lobbies, coupled with greedy politicians. Rampant in all developed countries.

[sambar358]

Yep....a pretty predictable response from the Minister on this and certainly a decision made on the grounds of the political future of the governement.....or this Minister....rather than making the hard decisions that while not acceptable to some are yet the right decisions for the environment long-term. So we seem to be back to square one with this......and the feel-good and expensive methods of removing small numbers of horses from the Park for "re-housing" but the reality is that 2/3rds of the trapped horses end-up at the knackery anyway as acknowledged in official documentation on past feral horse recvoery efforts in the Park. So while the Minister claims that "no brumbies will be shot in the Park on his watch" many horses removed from the Park under the current trapping program are destined to be slaughtered for pet-food and very few actually get "re-housed" successfully. But I guess being "humanely killed in a knackery" is far less repugnant to him than the same horses being felled quickly by a bullet delivered by a trained professional marksman from a helicopter.

To me....the Ministers crowing on this also makes a mockery of the current (no-doubt expensive) process which still has around 6 months to run before a management plan is developed. Sounds like this whole public consultation process is thing really just a window-dressing exercise if the Minister can go public and remove what is generally regarded as the most effective methond of feral horse control from the table before the whole process is completed. But this isn't the first time that political interference has pre-empted due process and unfortunately it certainly won't be the last ! Cheers

s358

[Mark F]

The NSW Government has just announced a massive cull of brumbies. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-01/plans-to-drastically-reduce-snowy-mountains-brumby-population/7373634. The backlash should be fairly intense.