Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Nichole Hoskin

Shooting Roos to Save Rangelands? by Nichole Hoskin

By

There are claims that the presence of too many sheep, cattle and kangaroos are damaging Australia’s rangelands and that commercial shooting of kangaroos will reduce overall grazing pressure.

In an article published today at On Line Opinion entitled ‘Kangaroo: Designed for our Times’ by Executive Officer of the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia, John Kelly, he writes that commercial harvesting of roos delivers, “a direct environmental benefits in our fragile arid rangelands where kangaroos are harvested” and that “these are extremely fragile areas which can support a limited number of grazing animals” and that “allowing the grazing pressure from all animals to increase is one of the most serious environmental hazards in these rangelands.”

Population numbers of red and grey kangaroos can fluctuate from 15 to 50 million. Under current government policy, 10-15 percent of this population is shot in any one year. So, commercial harvesting can potentially reduce grazing pressure particularly by limiting increases in wet years.

On the other hand, commercial shooting of kangaroos will not relieve grazing pressure if there is a corresponding increase in numbers of other grazing herbivores, such as sheep, cattle and ferals including horses, donkeys, camels, rabbits, buffalo and deer.

Gordon Grigg, an Australian expert on kangaroos, argues that, “Most of the grazing lands, unfortunately, show everywhere abundant signs of the foot and tooth pressure of the introduced hardfooted stock and there is simply no room for doubt that running sheep in the fragile arid inland has done a lot of damage. Graziers will argue that they obey the stocking rates recommended and many of them do, perhaps even most of them do. Maybe even all of them do, but the fact of the matter remains that the damage is everywhere evident.”

It remains unclear what proportion of grazing pressure directly results from kangaroos.

To Cull Kangaroos, or Not: Nichole Hoskin

By

An Australian Department of Defence proposal to cull 400 Eastern grey kangaroos in Belconnen has generated a diverse range of responses on ABC News Online comments.

A contributor, Annabelle, said,

“The killing of kangaroos for convenience is disgusting. Killing kangaroos is just like killing whales-not necessary. It is a hang over from the ‘we must conquer the bush’ mentality of the past.”

It would be easier for the Department of Defence to take no action, which is problematic from an animal welfare perspective because no culling has the potential negative effects on this Eastern grey kangaroo population to lead to insufficient food and shade for the kangaroos. In addition, in this case, expert opinion suggests the Department of Defence needs to cull some of the kangaroos to protect endangered grasslands and amphibian species.

It is also questionable that the killing of kangaroos is not necessary, as asserted by Annabelle, considering that it appears there is overpopulation of Eastern grey kangaroos on this site.

According Michael Linke, the CEO of the ACT branch of RSPCA Australia, there are approximately 600 kangaroos on a site with room for about 100 kangaroos.

The CEO of the New South Wales branch of RSPCA Australia told Kerri-Anne Kennelly that in the past 10 months, there is an additional 80 kangaroos on the site.

Since it appears that Eastern grey kangaroos are overpopulating the site and are continuing to increase in numbers, it is arguably necessary to cull to reduce the numbers of kangaroos on the site. The cull in this case is clearly to reduce numbers of kangaroos on this site since the proposal is for the culling of 400 kangaroos, rather than killing all the kangaroos on the site.

In addition to overpopulation of Eastern grey kangaroos on the Belconnen site, according to ACT Chief Minister, Mr Stanhope, experts argue that overpopulation of kangaroos on the site is causing damage to endangered native grasslands and lizards . Considering that overpopulation is causing damage to endangered grasslands and species, it is arguably necessary to cull some of the kangaroos on this site to protect the environment and biodiversity on the site.

In contrast to Annabelle’s view, a contributor at ABC Online using the name ‘wildlife rescuer’ said,

“I work as a volunteer animal rescuer. Let me explain some things for you: 1. All kangaroos have home ranges (area which they know intimately) which means if relocated they become lost, confused and more often die from stress; 2. To sedate and move 400 adult kangaroos (each weighing up to 90kgs) is going to take a lot of manpower and drugs regardless, you also need people at the relocation site to ensure sedation doesn’t have nasty side effects; 3. Due to the drought we are getting more calls to kangaroos in suburbia where they have gotten lost in looking for food which just isn’t around, in travelling on concrete and asphalt these animals destroy the pads on their feet and need to be euthanized anyway. So although I am an animal lover, rescuer and activist even I have to admit that the best thing for these animals is to put them down in this instance because to move them is to kill them slowly and cruelly and with no food available nature is doing the same thing. Why make them suffer when the solution can be painless for them?”

While wildlife rescuers contribution is an opinion, it is arguably an opinion informed by practical experience and training. This opinion is interesting because it suggests that the decision to cull kangaroos in this case is in the best interests of the kangaroos in question, rather than being a choice between the best interests of the kangaroos and the best interests of humans. It is also interesting to note that the view of ‘wildlife rescuer’ is consistent with the expert advice to the ACT Government, which recommended a cull as the most humane option.

Despite expert evidence that culling of 400 kangaroos on the Belconnen site is necessary to effectively reduce environmental damage to the site caused by overpopulation by the kangaroos, activists argue for the relocation of the kangaroos to New South Wales. It is questionable whether re-locating the 400 kangaroos to New South Wales is a viable option, considering that veterinarians and animal welfare experts argue, in a report to the ACT Government, that relocation is traumatic to the kangaroos and is an inhumane option in this case . It is questionable whether relocation is a viable alternative in this case because New South Wales law utilises the commercial harvesting and culls of abundant kangaroo species in order to resolve the problems associated with overpopulation. Given that New South Wales utilises commercial harvesting and culls to address overpopulation by some kangaroo species, it is arguable that relocating the 400 kangaroos will avoid the killing of these kangaroos. It is interesting to note that it is unclear whether the New South Wales Government would allow the relocation of the 400 kangaroos to New South Wales .

Then on ABC Radio National ‘World News Today’ on Tuesday, April 1, 2008, the Department of Defence announced that the planned cull of 400 Eastern grey kangaroos on its Belconnen site would no longer take place because the Department of Defence is researching relocating the kangaroos. The Department of Defence spokesperson claimed that the Department of Defence had always wanted to relocate the 400 Eastern grey kangaroos but the ACT Government only granted a permit to allow for the culling of the kangaroos.

For the CEO of the ACT branch of RSPCA Australia, Michael Linke, this decision is questionable because the expert evidence, in this case, is that a cull was the most humane option. In this case, a cull was the most humane option because experts on animal welfare view relocation as traumatic and inhumane to the kangaroos.

It is unclear how the kangaroos would adapt to changes in location.

It is also questionable whether the Department of Defence decision to research relocating kangaroos is a positive considering that this is research on relocating an abundant species. It is arguable that there is a greater need to research relocating endangered species to improve their chances of survival. The relocation of the kangaroos to New South Wales is also questionable considering that New South Wales law enables the commercial harvesting and culls of abundant kangaroo species, including the Eastern grey kangaroo.

It is interesting to note that the Department of Defence decision to research relocation comes after two weeks of activists protesting at the Belconnen site with media coverage of the issue. It is curious that the Department of Defence is now a vocal supporter of a relocation plan, considering that representatives of various animal welfare/wildlife activist groups argued that relocation is an alternative to the cull.

Considering that veterinarians and RSPCA surgeons agree that relocation is traumatic and inhumane, it is questionable whether wildlife/animal welfare activists were protesting for the best interests of the kangaroos because they support the inhumane option rejected by experts. However, by researching the relocation of the 400 kangaroos from the Belconnen site, the Department of Defence is effectively acting against expert advice on the best interests of the kangaroos, by ‘researching’ a inhumane alternative, to appease activists who appear to have no idea about why the cull is necessary and the effect of relocation on kangaroos.

————-
Nichole has posted a lot of information on kangaroos at the environment wiki linked to this blog: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/wiki/Australian_Kangaroos

‘Climate Change Refugees’ Not Refugees: A Note from Nichole Hoskin

By

In the movie The Day After Tomorrow changes in ocean current circulation from global warming result in the northern hemisphere freezeing over and US citizens fleeing to Mexico in search of a warmer environment. In An Inconvenient Truth we are told the world is already too warm with rising sealevels now displacing some Pacific islanders. Meanwhile, in the real world, it seems there really is no such a thing as a climate change refugee …

Hi Jennifer,

The Refugee Convention establishes a procedure for States to determine whether the individual is entitled to the status of a refugee. Once status determination takes place, with health and security checks, if the individual is a refugee then he/she is entitled to the human rights specified in the Convention–such as access to health care, education, employment, housing, social security etcetera.

The main problem with trying to include people displaced by climate change within the definition in Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention is that such persons do not meet the requirements of the definition. To be a refugee, an individual must have:

1) crossed an international frontier–ie. be outside of his/her country of origin. If the individual remains in his/her country of origin, then the individual is an Internally Displaced Person (IDP) and not a refugee

2) “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted” –the person left his/her country of origin because of the fear of being persecuted –the person left or cannot return to his/her country of origin because of the fear of being persecuted

3) the persecution is for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion

4) the individual is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of his country of origin–the main aim of the Refugee Convention was to attach an individual without the protection of a State to another State.

5) subject to cessation and exception clauses–mainly for war-criminals, serious criminals, and persons under the protection of another State/UN agency.

Since the definition of a refugee requires persecution for one of the five specified reasons (race etcetera), the indiscriminate nature of climate change means that people displaced by climate change are not refugees. The issue of how international law will resolve climate change displacement is only just emerging. However, the only academics that have written papers considering the issue are scientists without legal training, who generally don’t understand the definition of a refugee. No legal academics have written about the issue yet. However, Dr Jane McAdam, an expert in Refugee Law, has been getting increasing numbers of questions on this issue from Non-Government Organisations. Jane started the course ‘Forced Migration’ last year so that she could teach refugee law and consider whether it could extend to other circumstances where people are forcibly displaced, such as climate change, development induced displacement and internal displacement. Jane is also the director of the Centre for Climate Change in the Gilbert and Tobin Public Law Centre at the University of NSW.

While it is possible to open up negotiations for an extension of the Refugee Convention, through an Optional Protocol to vary the original Convention, there is significant resistance to doing this from the UN High Commission for Refugees and legal academics. Under International Law, States must consent to the obligations to be bound by them. At present it is unlikely that States will consent to an extension of their obligations to refugees in the current political climate, where most Developed States are actively pursuing policies to avoid responsibilities under the Refugee Convention.

The other alternative is for the negotiation of a separate treaty to specifically address the needs of people displaced by climate change. It is arguably preferable to adopt this approach, particularly considering the negative perceptions of ‘refugees’ in media discussions of immigration policy in Developed States (such as Europe, US and Australia). There is also the advantage of creating a definition that allows for arrangements to be made for resettlement before people are actually displaced by climate change, rather than persisting with the crossing an international border requirement.

It is also important to take into account that there were 9.9 million refugees in 2006. The vast majority of those refugees were in Developing States, such as Pakistan with 2.1 million Afghan refugees; and about 2 million Iraqi refugees in Iran, Syria, Jordon and Turkey. Since the international community has failed to equitably share the burden of refugees on Developing States, it is questionable whether increasing the numbers of people within the refugee definition will lead to durable solutions, such as resettlement in another State.

Nichole Hoskin