Petition to Scrap Heritage Value of Brumbies Debated in NSW. ABC News 16/5/25

[Deeds]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-15/petition-to-scrap-heritage-value-of-brumbies-debated-nsw/105292470

[tdierikx]

The Invasive Species Council always advocate killing as many non-native species as possible, by any means - despite that approach not being successful in any way, shape, or form to date. They are strong proponents of widespread baiting, which also tends to kill non-target (read native) animals. They are not interested in any other form of population control, only killing is on the table as far as they are concerned.

 

The aerial culling of brumbies specifically is new, but aerial culling of other species - deer, pig, fox, dingo, etc - has always been one of the "population control" methods utilised in national parks. No matter the species, it's not the most humane method, with animals not always killed outright, and terrain is too hard to get into to correct a non-kill shot, so wounded animals are left to die a slow and painful death, be that by bleeding out from, or by infection of those wounds. Despite the use of all the different lethal culling methods, we still see adverse numbers of the non-native animals in the park, so obviously that method isn't actually very effective for those species, is it? Probably because after a cull, there is no follow-up with any other control methods until numbers go up again and another mass killing is ordered.

 

The original count offered as evidence for the need to enable aerial culling of brumbies was between 12,000 and 22,000 individual brumbies in the park. They have killed around 6,000 of them, and now state that the count is between 3000 and 4000... ummm, anyone here think that maybe the initial count may have been a bit off?

 

Regardless, now that brumby numbers are down to the legislated target, what actions are they looking at to keep control of numbers? Now we see the Invasive Species Council petitioning to kill the rest of them... no interest in non-lethal means of control at all. Is anyone also interested to hear that the number of signatures on their current petition (11,300) is almost exactly the same as the number of pro-forma submissions (11,200 from memory) to the consultation as to whether this barbaric cull should be considered in the first place? Essentially, the Invasive Species Council stacked the consultation with thousands of identical "submissions" that they provided for their followers to use to submit to that consultation - 11,200 copies of the same single submission. This practice is usually curtailed by combining all such pro-forma submissions as a single submission, which stops such large group actions being used to sway the legislative process unfairly - but the NSW government decided that in this particular case, they were counting them all as individual submissions, as they had already decided to enable aerial culling, and they needed the "support" of those pro-forma submissions to get it happening.

 

Anyways, as we see much support for keeping the heritage status of the brumbies in Kosciusko, they are still aerial shooting other non-native species at regular intervals with little public resistance... are not Bambi, Babe, or Basil Brush as worthy of a humane passing as a brumby? Dingoes are native animals, yet they are also targetted for culling everywhere in this country... endorsed by the Invasive Species Council... double standards much?

 

T.

[Tempus Fugit]

On 17/05/2025 at 4:17 AM, tdierikx said:

The Invasive Species Council always advocate killing as many non-native species as possible, by any means - despite that approach not being successful in any way, shape, or form to date. They are strong proponents of widespread baiting, which also tends to kill non-target (read native) animals. They are not interested in any other form of population control, only killing is on the table as far as they are concerned.

 

The aerial culling of brumbies specifically is new, but aerial culling of other species - deer, pig, fox, dingo, etc - has always been one of the "population control" methods utilised in national parks. No matter the species, it's not the most humane method, with animals not always killed outright, and terrain is too hard to get into to correct a non-kill shot, so wounded animals are left to die a slow and painful death, be that by bleeding out from, or by infection of those wounds. Despite the use of all the different lethal culling methods, we still see adverse numbers of the non-native animals in the park, so obviously that method isn't actually very effective for those species, is it? Probably because after a cull, there is no follow-up with any other control methods until numbers go up again and another mass killing is ordered.

 

The original count offered as evidence for the need to enable aerial culling of brumbies was between 12,000 and 22,000 individual brumbies in the park. They have killed around 6,000 of them, and now state that the count is between 3000 and 4000... ummm, anyone here think that maybe the initial count may have been a bit off?

 

Regardless, now that brumby numbers are down to the legislated target, what actions are they looking at to keep control of numbers? Now we see the Invasive Species Council petitioning to kill the rest of them... no interest in non-lethal means of control at all. Is anyone also interested to hear that the number of signatures on their current petition (11,300) is almost exactly the same as the number of pro-forma submissions (11,200 from memory) to the consultation as to whether this barbaric cull should be considered in the first place? Essentially, the Invasive Species Council stacked the consultation with thousands of identical "submissions" that they provided for their followers to use to submit to that consultation - 11,200 copies of the same single submission. This practice is usually curtailed by combining all such pro-forma submissions as a single submission, which stops such large group actions being used to sway the legislative process unfairly - but the NSW government decided that in this particular case, they were counting them all as individual submissions, as they had already decided to enable aerial culling, and they needed the "support" of those pro-forma submissions to get it happening.

 

Anyways, as we see much support for keeping the heritage status of the brumbies in Kosciusko, they are still aerial shooting other non-native species at regular intervals with little public resistance... are not Bambi, Babe, or Basil Brush as worthy of a humane passing as a brumby? Dingoes are native animals, yet they are also targetted for culling everywhere in this country... endorsed by the Invasive Species Council... double standards much?

 

T.

Non-indigenous humans could also be regarded as an "invasive species" given their killing of native animals eg roos & koalas.

[asal]

Are koala's been removed from indigenous list now.

 

1,000 shot from the helicopter gunships in Victoria.