Protecting our Mountain Heritage

                                                                                                                            Phone  02 6384 3376  
                                                                                                    Email: ctemedwards@bigpond.com    
                                                                                                                             

TO TUMUT AND ADELONG TIMES

“BRUMBY DEBATE- SMBUG RESPONDS IN DEFENCE OF THE BRUMBY”

Sir,

     After reading Steve Horsley’s (Regional Mgr. NPWS South West Slopes) comments in your front page lead article on June 15 and his subsequent Letter to the Editor on June 29 I feel compelled to inform your readers that they are being “snowed” by the relentless campaign of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (“NPWS”) to discredit the snowy mountains brumby.

     Let us first understand what is driving all this. SMBUG is of the view that first and foremost it is political expedience by the NSW Government to ensure preference vote support from extreme environmental groups. Coupled to this we have the near fanatical ideology of such groups like the Colong Foundation and the National Parks Association to have ALL horses (both wild and ridden) removed from all national parks and other public land reserves.

     The removal of horses from Kosciuszko National Park (“KNP”) by NPWS is not about prudent land management. Prudent land management would be NPWS directing their efforts to the immediate major threats to the biodiversity within the park and not squandering their limited resources on a non- predator.

     SMBUG believes that the majority of Australian’s would see wildfires as the greatest single threat to the natural landscape and biodiversity. KNP will take hundreds of years to recover from the January 2003 wildfire that decimated approximately 67% (450,000 ha) of KNP. That fire then went on to become the Canberra firestorm that burnt 70% (160,000ha) of the ACT with four people losing their lives and over 500 homes being destroyed. In the 2002-03 bushfire season more than three million hectares were burnt in the south east of Australia and less than 7% was private land.

     The State Government, NPWS or the extreme greens have never acknowledged the environmental catastrophe the 2003 fire caused to KNP.  Who is measuring the annihilation of wildlife and flora, the destruction of thousands of hectares of alpine ash and snow gums, the pollution of streams and air and the loss of historical heritage sites?

      SMBUG sees the other immediate major threats to the well being of the biodiversity within KNP to be the predator feral animals such as wild dogs, foxes, cats, pigs and the proliferation of pest plants or weeds such as blackberry, St John’s Wort, serrated tussock, hemlock, Patterson’s curse, needle bush, thistle, yarrow and fire weed.

      SMBUG contends that the alleged impact from brumbies pales into insignificance when compared to the known impacts from fire that will be visible for 300 years or more and the impact from predators that are causing near extinction to many of the native species. Then we have the pest plants or weeds that, crowd out native species, change ecosystems by shading or smothering native plants and animals, shade and choke streams which alters the hydrology, provide safe harbour for pest animals and invariably increase fuel loads due to their density.

      SMBUG acknowledges that brumbies do cause some level of impact. Likewise, NPWS should acknowledge that all activities within KNP have varying degrees of impact and that there should be independent scientific weighting of such impacts. We believe that brumby impact is temporary as it repairs itself within weeks or months when that area ceases to be occupied and it would be absurd to suggest that in the long term such impacts are of a serious or irreversible detrimental nature.

     It would seem from Mr Horsley’s comments that it is NPWS policy to have zero tolerance impact levels for brumbies.

     If the same policy was applied in the past to other activities within KNP there would be no Snowy Hydro Scheme, no skiing related infrastructure, no walking track access to the summit of Mt Kosciuszko, no Snowy Mountains Highway through the Yarrangobilly karst area, no major and minor link roads, no Tantangara Dam and other reservoirs/dams and aqueducts, no high and low voltage power lines and their associated access tracks, no fire and management trails etc.

     NPWS applying the same policy today would mean the prohibition of all recreational activities eg skiing and snow sports, walking, driving, sightseeing, picnicking, fishing, camping, caving, horse riding, cycling, canoeing, rafting, boating etc. In other words “lock it up” and throw away the key.

     Regarding Mr Horsley’s comments about brumbies crossing the Snowy Mountains Highway, we agree that motorist safety is an important issue. However, here we have an unfenced highway through a national park with a 100km p/h speed limit. Surely, all wildlife needs protection and the consequences of a motorist swerving to miss a wombat or a brumby are no different. Incidentally, our inquiries with police show no reported accidents with brumbies in the northern end of KNP in the last four years. On the other hand there are many accidents reported as a result of the nightly “road kill” of kangaroos along Blowering Dam.

      For three years SMBUG has sought through NPWS to have the present totally inadequate signage drastically improved and the speed limit lowered. We have also suggested that temporary fencing at the known brumby crossing locations would turn them back from the highway. In the past “salting” in winter has attracted other wildlife as well as brumbies to the highways edge. But obviously our suggestions have not suited NPWS’ agenda and they would prefer to use the safety angle as justification for brumby capture and removal.

     It is precisely for the above stated reasons that SMBUG will not support or condone NPWS in their current brumby removal programme.

     In other words Mr Horsley, SMBUG on behalf of the defenceless brumby would like NPWS to bring   balance and fair play to the debate and we agree with your comment that there should be “give and take by all parties”.

To ensure transparency and public communication NPWS should answer the following questions-                                                                                                        

·    How can the 2006 Kosciuszko Plan of Management (“KPOM”) attempt to recognise the cultural heritage value of the brumby as stated by Mr Horsley, when it is referred to in the KPOM as a “feral horse”? It is then grouped with other introduced animal species and as a result is subject to a major management objective that is defined as “the distribution and abundance of introduced animal species found in the park are reduced and populations are eradicated wherever feasible”. The exclusion areas listed in the KPOM have the potential to exclude the brumby (by way of capture and removal) from 50% (330,000 hectares) of KNP.

·     How many brumbies since 2002 have been removed from the southern end of KNP?

·     What public endorsement has been obtained regarding the current removal of brumbies from the northern end of KNP?

·      When did removal commence in the northern end of KNP and how many brumbies have been removed to date?

·     The 2002 Wild Horse Management Plan for the alpine area of KNP stated that there were about 3,000 wild horses in the park with approximately 1,400 in the southern end. Is it then not strange that the 1,600 in the northern end have reduced to 1,200 now? What happened to the estimated 7-15% increase in population per annum? It is clear that more field-based research is required.

·      Where is the independent scientific evidence weighting all the impacts on KNP both past and present?

·     Where is the independent scientific evidence as to the maximum brumby population that would be sustainable and what minimum numbers are required to remain genetically viable and to cover contingencies such as extremely harsh winters, drought or the likes of the 2003 bushfires which destroyed 50% of the horses in the southern end of KNP?

·     Where has due consideration been given to the positives that the brumby brings to the parks values such as tourism and flow on benefits to the local economy, grazing benefits to the biodiversity, reduction in fuel loads etc?

         SMBUG is of the firm opinion that the Snowy Mountains Brumby is of great cultural significance. They are the descendants of the first horses brought into the area in the 1830’s. Then they formed part of the foundation breed stock that became known as the “Waler” (and then much later the Australian Stock Horse) that was bred to meet the remount specifications of the British army in India. Later, the Australian army used the Waler in South Africa and in the two World Wars and its stamina and exploits became legendary.  

          It was A.B.(“Banjo”) Paterson’s poem “The Man from Snowy River”, published in 1895, that gave the “wild bush horse” iconic status and contributed to our national identity. For well over 100 years the snowy mountains brumby has been immortalised by poetry, literature, art, music and more recently film.

          Surely, after 177 years the snowy mountains brumby earns the right to be recognised as part of the cultural heritage of the Snowy Mountains and that an appropriate viable population is protected in KNP.

 For more information or to offer support please contact