Horses and heritage

[Hallu]

Not to mention that elephants do have predators in Asia and Africa, mainly big cats such as tigers and lions, even though it's mainly poachers that keep their numbers so low. No such thing in Australia, and they would multiply like camels and horses, then we would need to cull them which would, again, seem inhumane and would be, again, delayed so much that the vegetation would suffer irreversibly. Same as the horses' case. The only "good" justification for elephants in Australia would be if it were to help save the species, as poaching would be less likely here than in Africa or Asia.

[maddog]

G’day Pteropus,

I agree when Bowman made his elephant suggestion he was comfortable it was unlikely to become policy, but his later comments were made in the context of the Blue Mountains. When questioned further, he volunteered goats as an alternative, others have suggested camels. Grazing animals have many impacts, one of which is reducing fuel loads by thinning vegetation. This idea is popular amongst the rural community, who are able to leverage their considerable credibility, particularly intergenerational experience as ‘responsible’ and experienced land managers, to bolster the case. A substitute is the deliberate use of fire to manage the landscape. Though not without its own difficulties, it is popular with foresters, increasingly so with park rangers, and is capturing the public imagination. The exploration of different ideas should not surprise. Wildfires and what Flannery calls the ‘new extinction crisis’, forces reconsideration of many assumptions. As Bowman stated we ‘have to embrace change on a massive scale’. These are exciting times.

There does seems to be some evidence wild dogs are are useful in controlling pest fox and kangaroo populations. Much less that they successful in control cats though. The ecologist Benjamin Allen is a notable skeptic.

[highercountry]

Grazing animals have many impacts, one of which is reducing fuel loads by thinning vegetation.

This is the same old nonsense trotted out by the Mountain Cattleman's "Alpine Grazing Reduces Blazing" campaign.
There is no credible evidence that this is the case.
The 2003 Victorian Alps fires saw areas grazed by cattle and horses burn just as, if not more intensely than ungrazed areas.
This is a complete furphy propagated by the cattlemen to support their push to return cattle to the high country.
Cattle and horses mostly eat grass and fresh green herbage. Until they develop an appetite for eucalypt, acacia and other shrub and tree and woody species they have a minimal to non-existant effect on reducing fuel loads and fire intensity.
One of the few responsible land management activities practiced by the cattlemen in the High Plains over summer grazing periods was to shoot significant numbers of feral horses competing with their cattle for feed. A fact that is not at all publicised by the cattlemen.
Introducing goats, camels, cats, tigers and elephants? Well, even a rudimentary understanding of ecological processes informs one that this suggestion sits firmly in the category of just plain ridiculous.

[icefest]

Why don't we just clear-fell all Australian forests? Of anything else grows back we can just drown it in glyphosate.

Heaven knows, I'd be a lot cheaper, and we wouldn't need to pay for parks.

My point is, the Australian ecosystem is unique and by adding and exterminating species we are diluting this aspect.

[maddog]

HC,

Given that you purport to have a grasp of rudimentary ecological processes, I assume you understand that woodlands and open forests are generally not self perpetuating, that in the absence of external disturbance they have a tendency to degenerate into closed forests. Given that the latter are a common forest type within the conservation estate, this conversion reduces complexity when viewed at a landscape level.

Wild horses, along with other mega-fauna surrogates, have been shown to affect native tree mortality in Australia. Horses do this by the trampling of seedlings / saplings and the chewing and stripping of bark. These qualities can help to maintain woodland settings which may otherwise be lost.

By thinning woody vegetation and grazing on grasses, etc, large herbivores significantly reduce fire loads and thus, over time, the risk of wildfire. There are alternatives to large herbivores, and in some cases these may be more appropriate. They include herbicide application, mechanical clearing and controlled fire.

Icefest,

Both broad-scale herbicide application and mechanical control are more expensive than the cost of either large herbivores (essentially a passive management technique), or controlled fire. Controlled fire can be beneficial to maintain fire dependent vegetation communities, whereas herbicide control is useful to minimise disturbance or where the use of fire is deemed a risk. Mechanical control can be used in all seasons, in most weather and may reduce the risk of employing other methods in the future. Over small areas, or in sensitive locations (such as riparian areas), glycophosphate may be applied, but over larger areas (particularly via aerial application) herbicides such as 2,4-D or Grazon are often more appropriate. At times the use of a combination of some or all of these techniques could be used to advantage.

[north-north-west]

And exactly how are we going to overcome the major negative impacts of large herbivores on these same ecosystems?

[Hallu]

You're just repeating what you said before without adding anything new... As highercountry said, those are backward views propagated by cattle farmers and horse supporters. They're also about 100 years old, appearing when the US first wanted to protect their National Parks (when grazing was still unmonitored). It's just as wrong and old as saying that wolves and all predators should be shot because they kill ungulates...

The problem with reducing "fuel load" is that we don't know how it works. Studies in Kakadu showed that despite small controlled fires preventing the bigger ones, small mammals are still in alarming decline. Besides, you cannot control the amount of grazing those horses or goats or cows would do. A National Park is not like a station you can manage... Yes open forests used to be the main ecosystem in Southern Australia, but settlers cleared them for farming. Having them back would be by actually plant trees in those farms and farm in open forests (which is actually beneficial to the cattle as they provide shade and moisture). It's been tried (see Eucalypts: A Celebration, by Wrigley and Fagg) but cows trample the seedlings and scratch their back on the young trees, killing them. Before the arrival of Europeans, Aussie open forests were probably maintained that way by a careful balance with the presence of kangaroos, wombats and emus. Plants' growth has then evolved to be only compatible with their feeding rythms, not with the behaviours of imported European animals.

[highercountry]

Given that you purport to have a grasp of rudimentary ecological processes, I assume you understand that woodlands and open forests are generally not self perpetuating, that in the absence of external disturbance they have a tendency to degenerate into closed forests. Given that the latter are a common forest type within the conservation estate, this conversion reduces complexity when viewed at a landscape level.

Wild horses, along with other mega-fauna surrogates, have been shown to affect native tree mortality in Australia. Horses do this by the trampling of seedlings / saplings and the chewing and stripping of bark. These qualities can help to maintain woodland settings which may otherwise be lost.

You draw the erroneous concussion that by introducing horses, cattle, elephants and the like to a degenerated "closed" forest type you can restore it to the rich, highly bio-diverse, "complex" open forest type it once was. Utter nonsense.
Aerial spraying of Grazon and thistle sprays to encourage the formation of open forest and woodlands. Farcical. Since when has blanket application of herbicide been an "appropriate" form of forest management. Vietnam maybe?
Back your claims up with solid credible evidence and I may entertain a slightly more open mind to your suggestions. Otherwise I consign such attitudes and opinions to the same basket as the climate change skeptics and denialists ie. psuedoscience and the beliefs of vested interests.

[maddog]

NNW,

We should not necessarily assume that the impact of these herbivores is on balance negative. I’m sure they contribute to localized erosion and the sedimentation of creeks, spread weeds, nutrient influx, soil compaction, etc. But let us keep all of this in perspective. Would this fine fellow not have done the same if given the opportunity?


http://australianmuseum.net.au/Diprotodon-optatum

Let us also consider the benefits in our assessment. If we remove the large herbivores we need a plan to keep these areas in their natural open state as they were when subject to aboriginal land management. And provide the funding to do so.

If we decide something must be done then we need honestly engage all stakeholders in a transparent manner. Let us not pretend that ecologists have all the answers. We are yet to accurately measure the population, determine its growth rate and estimate the carrying capacity of the park(s) in question.

We need a constructive dialog with stakeholders: neighbors, heritage horse associations, animal welfare (RSPCA) and the rural community more generally. Insulting and belittling legitimate stakeholders will not work. E&H know this. Negotiation will probably necessitate the reservation of public land and funds for ‘heritage’ horse habitat. If you have any doubt as to the need to engage stakeholders consider the history. The NPWS does not need another ignoble defeat.

Then we consider the method. The general consensus is aerial culling. But this time ensure the animals are dispatched quickly rather than left to die over a number of weeks as occurred last time. In NSW we have our volunteer conservation hunters. A mop up operation would seem an ideal test of commitment.

I may entertain a slightly more open mind to your suggestions.

You flatter yourself HC

[Hallu]

Read your own link please... It clearly states this big fellow existed because central Australia had much more surface water available, and that during droughts they died, with fossils found around dried lakebeds. Also, the key part is that it did not live in the area we're talking about in this topic : the Aussie Alps.

[maddog]

Is that right Hallu? Not that it matters but the distribution the of the Diprotodon optimum was near continent wide. It had a similar range to that of the Eastern Grey Kangaroo today.

[Hallu]

That is not what your first link said :

Habitat

Diprotodon preferred semi-arid plains, savannahs and open woodlands, and is generally absent from hilly, forested coastal regions (where a smaller diprotodontid, Zygomaturus, is usually found). Diprotodon is known from some coastal localities, including Naracoorte Caves and Kangaroo Island in South Australia. However, these areas may have been further from the coast in the Pleistocene when sea levels were lower.

Australian Pleistocene habitats changed over time in response to the changing climate (termed the Pleistocene oscillations). Dry, windy conditions alternated with more equable conditions throughout this period, and sea levels were generally much lower than today as ice was locked in polar regions. Extended droughts would have made much of inland Australia uninhabitable; hundreds of individuals have been found at the centre of Lake Callabonna in northern South Australia, trapped in the mud as the lakebed dried out. On the Darling Downs in Queensland, one study of Diprotodon habitat has found that areas once covered in woodlands, vine thickets and scrublands gave way to grasslands as the climate became drier.
- See more at: http://australianmuseum.net.au/Diprotod ... N8CzV.dpuf

[Pteropus]

Let us not pretend that ecologists have all the answers.

But once again you have all the answers right maddog? Phew…

[Nuts]

Is that your closing argument Pteropus? haha
Maybe a horse in a Zygomaturus suit Maddog?

[Pteropus]

yeah Nuts, probably, I've got to cut back on arguments on the interwebs...there's more important things in life these days

[Nuts]

Me too and +1

[maddog]

Nuts,

Pigmy Hippopotami wallowing in Australian wetlands would be a cheerful sight on a walk and an aid to international conservation efforts. We would need to keep a close eye on pig hunters though.

Flannery has not only proposed Pleistocene rewilding for Australia but also for the United States. Since the loss of mega-fauna, the disengagement of the indigenous peoples and decades of fire suppression efforts, the problems of vegetation thickening and wildfire in California shows remarkable parallels with our situation. But in a promising sign for the future the NSW National Parks have really stepped up in their efforts.

And for those interested in these issues the perspective of the Mountain Cattlemen's Association is worth a read.

[north-north-west]

NNW,
We should not necessarily assume that the impact of these herbivores is on balance negative. I’m sure they contribute to localized erosion and the sedimentation of creeks, spread weeds, nutrient influx, soil compaction, etc. But let us keep all of this in perspective. Would this fine fellow not have done the same if given the opportunity?

I don't assume - I read the science. Not the codswallop trying to pose as such promulgated by the MCA, but the real science, going back over a hundred years, into the real impact of large non-native hoofed herbivores on the Australian bush, in particular the alpine and sub-alpine areas.

I'm looking really hard at that image of the diprotodon, and I can't see the hooves. Funny, that. I also see an animal who evolved along with the country it inhabited, not something picked up from elsewhere and dropped into an environment that evolved without it. There's more to suitability for an ecological niche than mere size, even if it was proven (which it isn't) that these niches exist.

[maddog]

NNW,

Given your interest in the real science and going back over the years, you might be interested in an early record of vegetation changes as observed by the eminent explorer, naturalist and anthropologist, Alfred Howitt. Soon after the aboriginal land managers were displaced and traditional burning ceased, the curse of vegetation thickening started:

The valley of the Snowy River, when the early settlers came down from Maneroo to occupy it, as for instance, from Willis downwards to Mountain Creek, was very open and free from forests. At Turnback and the Black Mountain, the mountains on the western side of the river were, in many parts, clothed with grass, and with but a few large scattered trees…After some years of occupation, whole tracts of country became covered with forests of young saplings…and at the present time these have so much increased, and grown so much, that it is difficult to ride over parts which one can see by the few scattered old giants were at one time open grassy country.

We can only imagine what monsters these saplings have become. Interestingly, Howitt linked the cessation of aboriginal burning to vegetation thickening and leaf eating insects:

…in my opinion the increased growth of Eucalyptus forests since the first settlement of Gippsland has been due to the checking of brush fires year by year, and to increase thereby the chance of survival of the seeding Eucalyptus, and to the same cause we may assign the increase of the leaf eating insects…which seem to threaten the very existence of the Red-gum...Bush fires, which swept the country more or less annually, kept down the enormous multiplication of insect life, destroying myriads of grasshoppers and caterpillars…

This sounds like a very similar insect plague that we enjoy so much today. Unfortunately Hewitt did not pursue this further. Fortunately the forester Vic Jurskis does. He suggests a lack of fire leads to vegetation thickening and ultimately dieback. Jurskis observes:

Some eucalypt forests, that remained healthy and open despite long periods of fire exclusion, have declined in health following withdrawal of domestic stock…Grazing, slashing or cropping can substitute for natural fire regimes and maintain the health and predominance of eucalypts in these forests…Withdrawal of grazing (often to ‘protect’ diversity) can initiate eucalypt decline, and this will continue until more natural fire regimes are reinstated…

But back to history. The archaeologist Rhys Jones, in his classic paper Fire-Stick Farming (1969), having made observations of woody vegetation thickening choking once clean country, and the impact of this thickening on biodiversity, asks:

What do we want to conserve? We have a choice. Do we want to conserve the environment as it was in 1788, or do we yearn for an environment without man, as it might have been 30 000 or more years ago? If the former, then we must do what the Aborigines did and burn at regular intervals under controlled conditions. The day of “fire-stick farming” may not yet be over

If it is the latter then it is likely we will need a surrogate for the Procoptodon goliah, hooved like a horse with the diet of a goat. Perhaps we can find a place for both fire and herbivore. After all we can only do the best with what we have.

[north-north-west]

The leaps of 'logic' of which you are capable leave me breathless. Our megafauna were not hard-hoofed animals. Our ecosystems did not evolve with hard-hoofed animals, large or small. And you suggest that their introduction into - or at least maintenance within - these systems will have an effect more positive than negative?
That animals that have already been proven to have a major negative impact on our ecosystems (such as goats and horses) will somehow, in the absence of regular burning, have a positive impact?

As far as which type of landscape we want, I'd settle for minimising future damage and remediation of past damage, as far as is possible (we cannot, after all, re-create extinct species). And the continued presence of horses and other feral species - particularly in our most delicate areas - is not going to achieve that.
(btw, our respective use of words here is revealing - you tend to talk about 'landscapes'. I talk about ecosystems. They aren't the same thing)

[maddog]

NNW,

None of the ideas I have raised are my own and while they are not new, I agree they are controversial. During the course of our conversation I have given full credit to sources. It is worth noting that it is becoming increasingly fashionable to approach conservation initiatives at a landscape level, as of course the ecosystems we seek to protect are contained within that landscape.

From the evidence many introduced species have a negative impact, as their removal has had at times too. Tim Flannery, in his recent essay After the Future – Australia’s new extinction Crisis recounts how grazing once reduced blazing at Kakadu. Flannery provides an excellent illustration of both the negative and positive impacts:

The water buffalo had been introduced from Asia in the nineteenth century, and by the 1970s were wreaking havoc with aquatic ecosystems. They would crowd the billabongs in the dry season, destroy water lilies and reeds, and stirring up mud until the waterholes became mud wallows, the buffalo using them looking like so many maggots in a sore when viewed from the air.

There was good reason to cull the creatures, but the cull may have had unfortunate consequences. While the dynamics of the situation are still being worked out…a parks ranger explained to me that a program to eliminate water buffalo from the park had changed the fire regime. Adult water buffalo each eat around twenty kilograms of dry grass mass per day, such that prior to the cull they removed much flammable material from the Kakadu floodplain. With the buffalo gone, hot fires began to consume the uncropped grass. Fuelled from the floodplain, extremely hot and large fires began to sweep deep into the surrounding escarpment country.

I recall standing beside one victim of the flames, a gigantic Allosyncarpia tree, its eighty centimeter-thick trunk still smoldering, its once dense canopy a mess of browned leaves and ashes. This giant must have been hundreds of years old, and had been growing in a moist fold in the sandstone escarpment, where it had been safe from fire all its life – until in the absence of both grazing by water buffalo and Aboriginal fire management, its trunk was burnt through and it collapsed. Tragically, it was not alone. The whole area was being transformed by the enormous, extremely hot fires.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Chicken Little claims of some of environmentalism’s precious petals seeking to justify the cruelty of Rambo conservation should therefore be approached with skepticism.

[Giddy_up]

If the horses are removed permanently via a cull and the numbers that people believe are correct, it will see 40,000 animals shot.

I'm not sure how the world will react to that!!!!!!!!!! I'm not sure how I would react to that???

Its a lot of death............

[climberman]

Is that right Hallu? Not that it matters but the distribution the of the Diprotodon optimum was near continent wide. It had a similar range to that of the Eastern Grey Kangaroo today.

Which doesn't include the alpine areas...

[north-north-west]

If the horses are removed permanently via a cull and the numbers that people believe are correct, it will see 40,000 animals shot.

I'm not sure how the world will react to that!!!!!!!!!! I'm not sure how I would react to that???

Its a lot of death............

They are going to die anyway - it's the one certainty in life. A complete cull simply means that there won't be any replacements to die in the future. It also means that all the damage they and their descendants would have done doesn't occur.

[Giddy_up]

If the horses are removed permanently via a cull and the numbers that people believe are correct, it will see 40,000 animals shot.

I'm not sure how the world will react to that!!!!!!!!!! I'm not sure how I would react to that???

Its a lot of death............

They are going to die anyway - it's the one certainty in life. A complete cull simply means that there won't be any replacements to die in the future. It also means that all the damage they and their descendants would have done doesn't occur.

I just keep thinking there has to be a better way nnw. You would think with all our brilliant scientists, one of them could develop a genetic sterility program or something similar. Longer time line but so much easier on the animals and would be accepted by the public in unanimity I think.

[highercountry]

If the horses are removed permanently via a cull and the numbers that people believe are correct, it will see 40,000 animals shot.

I'm not sure how the world will react to that!!!!!!!!!! I'm not sure how I would react to that???

Its a lot of death............

Despite the sensationalised melodrama and media hype created over a 600 horse cull in the Guy Fawkes National Park some time ago, horses and donkeys are routinely shot in the arid inland country of Central Australia. Thousands are culled at any one time. Out of sight, out of mind.
In a Parks Vic closed forum I attended a couple of years ago a professional shooter (not the Hunter and Fishers rednecks) quoted figures of aerially shooting between 300 to 400 horses per day, per man.
Quick, clean, RSPCA approved and professional.
Aerially culling is the only viable and effective method.

[Giddy_up]

If the horses are removed permanently via a cull and the numbers that people believe are correct, it will see 40,000 animals shot.

I'm not sure how the world will react to that!!!!!!!!!! I'm not sure how I would react to that???

Its a lot of death............

Despite the sensationalised melodrama and media hype created over a 600 horse cull in the Guy Fawkes National Park some time ago, horses and donkeys are routinely shot in the arid inland country of Central Australia. Thousands are culled at any one time. Out of sight, out of mind.
In a Parks Vic closed forum I attended a couple of years ago a professional shooter (not the Hunter and Fishers rednecks) quoted figures of aerially shooting between 300 to 400 horses per day, per man.
Quick, clean, RSPCA approved and professional.
Aerially culling is the only viable and effective method.

It can't be that quick and clean, charges were brought agains the NPWS by the RSPCA in relation to Guy Fawkes. Only reason they didn't go further was the fact that there was a plea bargain by NPWS.

[wander]

To not remove the horses is negligent.

Way more negligent than the issues around shooting animals to kill them.

More horses are killed in the racing industry each year than is proposed to be killed in the parks. And these are not pretty put downs despite what the industry will tell you.

Professional shooters that I knew who were involved in the water buffalo program were pretty clear that they made sure each kill was a clean quick kill for a lot different reasons, the least of which was having a doco or news crew in the chopper at least every 6 months of the 10 year program.

It is just complete cobblers to not get on with the job of protecting the Australian environment where it is supposed to be protected (such and National Parks) by getting rid of feral animals such as horses, goats, foxes, cats, rabbits, hares, cattle, deer and others.

[highercountry]

It can't be that quick and clean, charges were brought agains the NPWS by the RSPCA in relation to Guy Fawkes. Only reason they didn't go further was the fact that there was a plea bargain by NPWS.

Charges were laid under intense political pressure applied to the RSPCA in response to a whipped up media frenzy.
The cull was, none the less, approved by the RSPCA in the first place as are other culls in remote areas and a proposed cull in the the Alpine National Park.
It is not a pleasant business by any means but nor is the sight of hundreds of slowly dying horses in a severe drought situation.
Is culling any less humane than slaughtering thousands upon thousands of livestock for human consumption or live shipping stock in crowded, hot circumstances where thousands also die before arrival at destinations where slaughter techniques are anything but humane?
It is a highly emotional topic.

[Giddy_up]

It can't be that quick and clean, charges were brought agains the NPWS by the RSPCA in relation to Guy Fawkes. Only reason they didn't go further was the fact that there was a plea bargain by NPWS.

Charges were laid under intense political pressure applied to the RSPCA in response to a whipped up media frenzy.
The cull was, none the less, approved by the RSPCA in the first place as are other culls in remote areas and a proposed cull in the the Alpine National Park.
It is not a pleasant business by any means but nor is the sight of hundreds of slowly dying horses in a severe drought situation.
Is culling any less humane than slaughtering thousands upon thousands of livestock for human consumption or live shipping stock in crowded, hot circumstances where thousands also die before arrival at destinations where slaughter techniques are anything but humane?
It is a highly emotional topic.

I think you have touched on something here higher country, live export was suspended because of the actions of slaughter men in another country not complying with peoples expectations on the humane handling of livestock. This should not be any different and if NPWS get this wrong they will have every animal liberationist screaming for justice. They will get it as well, because all over the world, peoples expectations are now holding anyone whom dispatches an animal, be it for sport, food or health reasons, accountable.

Its the law and its non-negotiable.