Horses and heritage

[highercountry]

I'll be very surprised if either the Victorian or NSW governments do actually approve any form of cull.
It is just too politically distasteful, despite, as I previously mentioned, the fact that horses are routinely culled in remote parts of the country.
Don't get me wrong. I detest violence, mistrust anyone that kills animals for recreational purposes, and shudder at the sight or thought of suffering animals.
But then again I eat meat, in earlier days worked on farms and willingly culled kangaroos, worked at sea commercially fishing and probably killed far more creatures than the average person.
I don't like the killing, regret the past and have softened considerably as I age. My conscience still wrestles with these contradictions.

[stry]

"Cull" :- A selection; spec. the process of selecting and killing surplus or inferior animals from a flock etc (part of the Oxford definition)

Please lets not follow the media mangling of the language whereby the deliberate killing of anything is referred to as a "cull".

Also a bit difficult for a cull to be permanent - unless ALL the animals are regarded as "surplus"

[highercountry]

Also a bit difficult for a cull to be permanent - unless ALL the animals are regarded as "surplus"

All the horses in an Alpine and Sub-Alpine environment are surplus. Unfortunately.

[Giddy_up]

Lets call it what it is, complete eradication. Thats why I offered the genetic sterility point, its slower but in the end hugely efficient at bring the population to zero and it has no respect for park boundaries. It will get all the wild horses....eventually.

No one is working on it of course, but I wish they where.

[maddog]

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...

The NPWS made a dog''s breakfast of the Guy Fawkes cull which has became a textbook example of how not to get a job done. The cull was not approved by the RSPCA. From the English Report:

...it would have been prudent for the Service to have sought the involvement and cooperation of the RSPCA in planning and carrying out the operation...

From Rosalie Chapple's paper:

A significant oversight of the Service was to undertake the cull without first notifying or consulting the RSPCA or the local community, and attempting to garner their support.

[highercountry]

My error.
They do however approve of aerially culling in the Aust. Alps;

http://australianbrumbyalliance.org.au/aba-disappointed-by-rspca-support-for-aerial-culling/

[maddog]

HC,

The Guy Fawkes experience was a bitter experience for NPWS and they deserve credit for their improved approach to public consultation. The RSPCA have offered conditional support for the aerial culling of horses in Kosciuszko National Park. Regarding your cynicism regarding future culls, apparently Andrew Stoner is a patron of the Save the Brumbies lobby group.

[highercountry]

The older I get, the more cynical I become.
I can't help it.
I blame all the politicians of all persuasions.
That ABC story in the above link is a nicely balanced (read non sensationalised) piece of journalism though. Quite rare these days.

[maddog]

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

The numbers being bandied around here are fanciful Giddy. You would be better sticking with your original scepticism in this regard.

The population of wild horses in KNP seems to fluctuate wildly depending on the survey. However it has been estimated as follows: (i) in 2002 at 3000 (NPWS); (ii) in 2005 at 1700 (Drying); (iii) in 2005 at 5200 (Dawson) and (iv) in 2009 at 7000 (NPWS).

Dawson & Hone (2012) estimated the annual rate of increase in the population of brumbies, at three sites they considered representative of KNP, at 1.03, 1.07 and 1.09. Averaging these three and we get an annual rate of increase of 1.063.

Applying this average annual rate of increase to each of the estimates above we arrive at a 2014 population of: (i) 6,245; (ii) 2,946; (iii) 9,012 or (iv) 9,501 respectively. That is, by taking each of the population estimates from the four surveys and applying the average annual growth rate to each, we have a brumby numbers in the KNP at between 2,946 and 9,501. Even if we applied the maximum population growth (1.09) to the largest surveyed population (7000) we would only have 10,770 brumbies. We are a long way from the 40,000 postulated.

No wonder the locals are scratching their heads in bewilderment.

[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...

The numbers being bandied around here are fanciful Giddy. You would be better sticking with your original scepticism in this regard.

The population of wild horses in KNP seems to fluctuate wildly depending on the survey. However it has been estimated as follows: (i) in 2002 at 3000 (NPWS); (ii) in 2005 at 1700 (Drying); (iii) in 2005 at 5200 (Dawson) and (iv) in 2009 at 7000 (NPWS).

Dawson & Hone (2012) estimated the annual rate of increase in the population of brumbies, at three sites they considered representative of KNP, at 1.03, 1.07 and 1.09. Averaging these three and we get an annual rate of increase of 1.063.

Applying this average annual rate of increase to each of the estimates above we arrive at a 2014 population of: (i) 6,245; (ii) 2,946; (iii) 9,012 or (iv) 9,501 respectively. That is, by taking each of the population estimates from the four surveys and applying the average annual growth rate to each, we have a brumby numbers in the KNP at between 2,946 and 9,501. Even if we applied the maximum population growth (1.09) to the largest surveyed population (7000) we would only have 10,770 brumbies. We are a long way from davidmoor's 28,905 and even further from the 40,000 postulated.

No wonder the locals are scratching their heads in bewilderment.

I don't believe the numbers are correct maddog. I know what 40,000 animals looks like. Its the population of a Wagga Wagga or similar scattered over an area 100km x 70km because we are only talking about KNP remember. To put this in further context, place 40,000 bushwalkers in the same area and tell them to find a tent site where they can't see one another, they would not be able, but this is how many horses are supposed to be up there?

I also don't think that people are looking at the logistics of what they are proposing based on the numbers that are being used. If you shot 40,000 horses you would suffer world condemnation, that would be a reality. There must be better ways and we have managed other invasive pests before with success, I think these should be explored before we resort to the gun as a solution.

On the argument that the charges that where levied against NPWS had been trumped up on the back of media hype, I don't buy it. Some animals died very painful deaths. One animal lived for a further 10 days after being shot and a second animal that had been shot had tried to foal. Thats just not acceptable as far as I am concerned. No animal should suffer and if one animal does then NPWS should be held accountable.

I would be happy if the Director General of NPWS would come out and say, "no animal will suffer or be in pain and all animals will be dispatched with a one shot kill during this cull and I am personally responsible along with the Minister and all parks staff whom have been involved in the planning of this if the animal welfare standards are not met". You could clear the goal cells out now, as no marksman can kill 40,000 animals with one shot kills from a helicopter and any thing less than this assurance will not meet the greater publics expectations on animal welfare.

It has been said that culling happens elsewhere in Australia on horses and camels etc....but have a look at the terrain that those types of techniques are being used in. Large flat treeless plains with localised water sources and ample room for a marksman to take aim and provide a clean kill, but I would also be prepared to wager that more than one bullet is used per animal. Now cast your mind to the National Park in question and ask yourself, how could they implement this, in this landscape?

On a personal note, I think all the horses and other pests should be removed from National Parks, just not with a gun in this case.

Edit: Changed land area for KNP, was 50km x 35km.

[climberman]

I don't believe the numbers are correct maddog. I know what 40,000 animals looks like. Its the population of a Wagga Wagga or similar scattered over an area 50km x 35km because we are only talking about KNP remember. To put this in further context, place 40,000 bushwalkers in the same area and tell them to find a tent site where they can't see one another, they would not be able, but this is how many horses are supposed to be up there?

I think the park is over three times bigger than you intimate (it's just under 7,000 sq km).

[Giddy_up]

I don't believe the numbers are correct maddog. I know what 40,000 animals looks like. Its the population of a Wagga Wagga or similar scattered over an area 50km x 35km because we are only talking about KNP remember. To put this in further context, place 40,000 bushwalkers in the same area and tell them to find a tent site where they can't see one another, they would not be able, but this is how many horses are supposed to be up there?

I think the park is over three times bigger than you intimate (it's just under 7,000 sq km).

Edit made for accuracy climberman. Thanks for that.

[maddog]

Climber and Giddy,

The total area of KNP is around 7,000 km2. But the area of the park that brumbies actually occupy is much smaller (it‘s not all suitable habitat). Dawson (2009) assumes a total inhabited area of 2,860 km2 from the total of the Alpine Parks, and 1,578 km2 (or 55%) in NSW. Dawson & Hone (2012) suggest brumbies inhabit some 2,800-3,000 km2 of the Alpine Parks. They do not break up each State’s share, but 55% of 3,000ha is 1,655km2. Giddy’s original figure of 50km x 35km (1,750km2) for KNP is roughly in line with these estimates.

If we take Giddy’s 1,750 km2 and convert to hectares we have 175,000 of them. Accepting for the moment a population of 40,000 brumbies as accurate, then we have 0.2286 per ha. Referring to the NSW DPI’s guidelines on Pasture for Horses, we find a small horse requires (at least) 8 ha to survive on poor, unimproved country with native grasses or country dominated by tussock. Given the climate and soils, this is likely a gross understatement of requirements. But apparently we have one brumby every 4.375 ha and they’re doing fine?

[stry]

I'm sceptical of a rate of increase of 6% pa (if I have understood the posted figures correctly). A population of herbivores without significant predation, that is growing at 6% pa is on the brink of decreasing.

I'm also opposed to clever biological solutions. There is much history of such efforts having unintended and very undesirable consequences.

Even with aerial/ground shooting, total elimination is impracticable. Removing the very last fertile animals would require disproportionate effort, which could easily be nullified by subsequent illegal releases.

[maddog]

Stry,

It is thought that food supply is the main factor limiting large herbivore populations such as the brumby. In their study Dawson and Hone (2012), suggest that the average rate of increase was 1.06, but that at two of the study sites (where growth was lower or close to zero), the long established populations had reached equilibrium with the food supply. This was reflected in the condition of the horses (e.g. reduced rates of fertility, poorer body condition, greater susceptibility to parasites, etc.). At the third study site, Currango, the rate of increase was determined as 1.09. The higher growth rate was thought to be in response to a substantial reduction in numbers that occurred after a severe bush fire (i.e. rapid growth from a low base). The better physical condition of the brumbies at this location suggested they had not yet reached equilibrium with their surroundings.

High rates of growth may also occur in horse populations that have been recently liberated, or subject to control measures (e.g. aerial culling), which has implications for management strategies. Such growth would be unlikely in long established populations not subject to natural disaster or active management.

Dawson (2009), cited a study on the population dynamics of feral horses in the AANP suggesting that (overall) populations may become food limited at densities of 6.4 brumbies / km2. If this were the case, assuming suitable horse habitat within the KNP of 1,750km2 (for convenience – see above), we would have a stable population of about 11,200 brumbies (or one per 15.6 ha), with some fluctuation expected depending on seasonal conditions.

[maddog]

The NPWS have released the count from their 2014 aerial survey of the Alpine National Parks. The brumby population for KNP is 6,000 (up from 4,200 in 2009). This represents an annual increase of 7.4%.

In that time the NPWS claim to have removed 2,000 brumbies from the KNP. If we assume that 400 brumbies were removed at the end of each year, the population experienced an annual increase of 15.78%. At this rate, if NPWS continue to remove 400 brumbies a year, in five years the population will reach 9,745.

Holding all else equal:

- If since 2009 the NPWS had removed 663 brumbies per year, rather than 400, they would have kept the population steady at 4200.

- If NPWS wish to maintain the current population of brumbies at 6000, they will need to remove 947 per year. But if they aim to reduce the current population to 2009 levels they will need to remove 1210 per year.

- If NPWS do nothing at all, it is likely that the brumbies will reach the KNP’s estimated carrying capacity (above) of around 11,200 individuals in a little over 4 years. At which point (if not before) they can wait for a natural disaster to reduce the population, then remove at least 16% of the surviving population every year. With luck the number of brumbies would remain constant from that low point. This sounds like the most economical and politically palatable option.

[Nuts]

Too much emotion, nature is far crueler than the odd wayward shot. Take the roos in the ACT, i'm sure animal lovers can't really argue For death by starvation (or MVA).
Managers are increasingly under pressure to pander to an emotional, political response. We are far from moving ahead with Inspiration and creative solutions. Even the 'do nothing' approach.
If there were 40, 000 horses in KNP you'd not have to be a bushwalker to find them.

[climberman]

I would be happy if the Director General of NPWS would come out and say, "no animal will suffer or be in pain and all animals will be dispatched with a one shot kill during this cull and I am personally responsible along with the Minister and all parks staff whom have been involved in the planning of this if the animal welfare standards are not met". You could clear the goal cells out now, as no marksman can kill 40,000 animals with one shot kills from a helicopter and any thing less than this assurance will not meet the greater publics expectations on animal welfare.

It has been said that culling happens elsewhere in Australia on horses and camels etc....but have a look at the terrain that those types of techniques are being used in. Large flat treeless plains with localised water sources and ample room for a marksman to take aim and provide a clean kill, but I would also be prepared to wager that more than one bullet is used per animal. Now cast your mind to the National Park in question and ask yourself, how could they implement this, in this landscape?

On a personal note, I think all the horses and other pests should be removed from National Parks, just not with a gun in this case.

The DG can't be personally responsible. The Minister's already responsible, that's the role of the Minister. I think it's gaol.

I suspect maddog's solution will be closest to the truth, though possibly the least 'humane' of all.

I'm happy to accept mostly good kills and some occasional unpleasant reality.

[wander]

Do we spend as much time arguing about the humanity of 1080 on foxes? We either want or do not want horses, pigs, goats, deer, cattle. sheep, cats, foxes in Parks. They all are feral, they all cause damage. More action less talking is required.

[Hallu]

A pragmatic way to think about this is to realize that it is man who brought those horses here. They should not exist. It is up to man to correct his mistake and cull them. I am more annoyed by the waste it's gonna be, as these horses could be used in farms or as riding horses or as meat and other products, but it's too expensive. The native vegetation goes first. The suffering of animals that were brought by us and then ignored and led to multiply by us should not be an obstacle to saving Kosciuszko. We did not care about the suffering of rabbits when we invented myxomatosis... and yet it's far worse than shooting horses in the head.

[maddog]

Huge numbers and rapid growth population growth would suggest few viable options other than aerial culling. But given that both the number and the growth of the population is much lower than previously suggested, it is obvious that there is no 'brumby emergency'. If there is no emergency we have options. The two most obvious are an expanded brumby running program and fertility control measures.

One problem we have seen with the current brumby extraction process is that there is not a sufficiently large market to ensure most (if not all) of these animals find homes. I agree it is cruel to capture a wild animal just to deliver it to the knackery, but it is also cruel to slaughter them from the air. However if restrictions were placed on the private sale of horses, and horse owners who were not registered breeders with a unique produce (e.g. racehorses) were required to sterilize their animals, by restricting supply we may see an increase in demand for the brumbies.

In addition a levy could be placed on all horse sales in Australia, including the imposition of an import / export tax on racehorses. Nor is there any good reason why all horse related industries (stables, TAB, etc.) should not pay a ‘brumby tax’ on all moneys exchanged. That way the horse industry and brumby lovers could incur the cost of an brumby fertility control program, the rehabilitation of landscapes (if necessary), and the costs associated with setting up new brumby reserves for animals that failed to find owners. A 'win-win' situation

[Hallu]

Please stop spreading dangerous views such as "there is no brumby emergency"... If we're talking about aerial culling it's because there IS.

[climberman]

A pragmatic way to think about this is to realize that it is man who brought those horses here. They should not exist. It is up to man to correct his mistake and cull them. I am more annoyed by the waste it's gonna be, as these horses could be used in farms or as riding horses or as meat and other products, but it's too expensive.

NPWS can't give away the ones they now capture via trapping. Who is capable of taking ~400 to 1000 horses every year? They are expensive to keep. A very large percentage of trapped horses still end up in the knackery, so same outcome as aerial cull except they have to go through the (I imagine) soemwhat unpleasant experience of being trapped and transported (eventually to a knackery). Unless you have a concern about the desperate need for more horses in pet meat?

[climberman]

Huge numbers and rapid growth population growth would suggest few viable options other than aerial culling. But given that both the number and the growth of the population is much lower than previously suggested, it is obvious that there is no 'brumby emergency'. If there is no emergency we have options. The two most obvious are an expanded brumby running program and fertility control measures.

One problem we have seen with the current brumby extraction process is that there is not a sufficiently large market to ensure most (if not all) of these animals find homes. I agree it is cruel to capture a wild animal just to deliver it to the knackery, but it is also cruel to slaughter them from the air. However if restrictions were placed on the private sale of horses, and horse owners who were not registered breeders with a unique produce (e.g. racehorses) were required to sterilize their animals, by restricting supply we may see an increase in demand for the brumbies.

In addition a levy could be placed on all horse sales in Australia, including the imposition of an import / export tax on racehorses. Nor is there any good reason why all horse related industries (stables, TAB, etc.) should not pay a ‘brumby tax’ on all moneys exchanged. That way the horse industry and brumby lovers could incur the cost of an brumby fertility control program, the rehabilitation of landscapes (if necessary), and the costs associated with setting up new brumby reserves for animals that failed to find owners. A 'win-win' situation

I think you have the standard two chances of that occuring.

[Hallu]

A pragmatic way to think about this is to realize that it is man who brought those horses here. They should not exist. It is up to man to correct his mistake and cull them. I am more annoyed by the waste it's gonna be, as these horses could be used in farms or as riding horses or as meat and other products, but it's too expensive.

NPWS can't give away the ones they now capture via trapping. Who is capable of taking ~400 to 1000 horses every year? They are expensive to keep. A very large percentage of trapped horses still end up in the knackery, so same outcome as aerial cull except they have to go through the (I imagine) soemwhat unpleasant experience of being trapped and transported (eventually to a knackery). Unless you have a concern about the desperate need for more horses in pet meat?

So, I say " we should cull them even though it's a waste but keeping them is too expensive", and you answer "they can't give them away because it's expensive". You don't seem to have read what I wrote lol.

[climberman]

Maybe what you wrote isn't clear to me? Let me clarify; based on your answer, I realise that what you wrote isn't clear to me. That could be either my fault, or yours.

[Hallu]

Well my view is that culling is necessary, should be done right now, and that posponing culling for the vague hope of a couple of captures and adoptions is ridiculous.

[climberman]

Well my view is that culling is necessary, should be done right now, and that posponing culling for the vague hope of a couple of captures and adoptions is ridiculous.

We seem to be in an extended furious agreement then!

[Nuts]

LoL, the culling is being 'postponed' while they get a better idea how many horses there are and gather further anecdotal submissions. Given there are many impacts and limited resources, finding out the scale of the problem is a good step forward.

Otherwise, perhaps with some irony, again the management reaction is triaged on emotion.
As is surely the case if nobody has, at least, considered elephants (jj, have a nice day)

[RFG]

Some great discussion, views, opinions and ideas being expressed on this thread. I would really encourage people to make these same comments, views, opinions and ideas known on the NPWS engagement website as well, not just here.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/protectsnowies/

The 'Protecting the Snowies' website will be what helps to shape the next KNP wild horse management plan, in regard to a community a barometer on community attitudes, perceptions and opinions and level of knowledge and understanding on the issue.

regards
RFG