Cattle back in the VicHigh Country

[Xtreme]

Lateline report tonight - Cattle have been reintroduced to the Victorian high country on a six year trial basis. :thumbsup:
What a great move. :banana:

[Treads]

What a great move. :banana:

You're kidding right? :no2:

Next you'll be saying how nice it is to see the brumbies in the bush too....

[KarlB]

This is a stupid decision that is more likely to increase the risk of fire than reduce it. The economic returns are far out weighed by the land management costs. Several species on the brink of extinction are likely to be seriously impacted. The damage from earlier grazing is still evident. This is ignorant vandalism, plain and simple. What a great move indeed!

KarlB
:mad:

[Redback]

What dumbarse **** thought this was a good idea, won't it be wonderful camping in amongst the cow ****, I can't wait:twisted::twisted::twisted:

AND the damage hard hoofed animals do, what is the matter with these people:confused::confused::confused:

**** me dead:wallbash::wallbash::wallbash:

[one_iota]

ABC Radio National's Bush Telegraph programme did a segment on this on February 10 and the podcast is available here:

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2011/02/bth_20110210.mp3

It strikes me that the argument the Vic Govt is using is similar to that used by the Japanese to justify whaling.

[weeds]

are you allowed to BBQ them......

[KarlB]

are you allowed to BBQ them......
Yes. Definitely. Go for it.

[one_iota]

The cavalry is being called in:

Govt given 'please explain' on alpine grazing trial - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/01/3151626.htm)

[isuzurover]

Yes. Definitely. Go for it.

AULRO get together and BBQ anyone???

400 cattle should just about feed all members :D

[Redback]

AULRO get together and BBQ anyone???

400 cattle should just about feed all members :D

If you can convince 90% of the people to take the cars off road you might:wasntme:

































Truth;)

[isuzurover]

If you can convince 90% of the people to take the cars off road you might:wasntme:

Ah yes - I knew there would be a snag. (pun intended)

Also, the quickest method of field butchering is to use a dedicated chainsaw with veggie oil in the bar oiler, but the discussions about proper chainsaw use and safety gear would take so long we would never get the meat ready...

[Bigbjorn]

See how long it takes the occupants of an outback homestead to get out of bed and turn on the lights when you drive past, fire a single shot in the air and start up a chainsaw. Once was a popular practical joke in Western Qld.

[zuno555]

Gazillions of deer, wild brumbies, pigs, wild dogs and cats etc etc.

What's a few hundred cattle going to do?

(dons flamesuit :) )

[kaa45]

I notice the negatives are not from Vic....hmmmm :o:wasntme:

[waynep]

Doesn't mean their opinions aren't valid. NSW and ACT have alpine high country too.
The subject is very emotive in Victoria so a few inter-state views are refreshing IMHO

[Treads]

I notice the negatives are not from Vic....hmmmm :o:wasntme:

I've seen the effect firsthand of Ardenside's cattle roaming the NSW Snowies :mad: Between them, the bloody feral horses, pigs and the ever increasing deer population our native flora doesn't stand a chance!

I was also in Vic for the '09 fires and have been firefighting for 17 years. High Country grazing does not reduce fuel loads in the critical mountain areas - only the grassland plains that were cleared for cattle grazing in the first place :censored:

i assume you are some kind of expert on the subject since you are from Vic? ;)

[amtravic1]

I have been riding trail bikes and 4wding in the Vic Alps for 40 years. I have been on tracks that most people will never travel on as the good tracks are slowly being turned into easy tracks or closed.
In all that time I can honestly say the only nuisance of having cattle in the high country is cow pats and there seems to be more flies. can anyone honestly say they noticed any real damage the cattle caused because I can not.
The cattle do keep the grass down and undergrowth clear. How many people can honestly say the grass at Wonnangatta was not at a dangerous length since the cattle have been removed? The same goes for many other areas.
The club I am involved with owns land that borders the National Park and a very popular 4wd track runs right through our property. There has been a very noticeable increase in undergrowth in the Alpine Park since the cattle have been removed. I cant say I will enjoy the increase in flies now but I think the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.
The other benefit is, if there needs to be access for cattle and cattle are allowed, then Parks Vic will have a bigger job trying to force us out and close more tracks.

Ian

[Ranga]

The cattle do keep the grass down and undergrowth clear.
And this is good in a native ecosystem because...?

How many people can honestly say the grass at Wonnangatta was not at a dangerous length since the cattle have been removed? The same goes for many other areas.

Never been there, but dangerous to who and why?

[amtravic1]

And this is good in a native ecosystem because...?


Never been there, but dangerous to who and why?

In a native eco system the bush is regularly burned. low intensity fires are a common occurrence. Poor management by Parks Vic means that undergrowth builds up to a very high level with no cattle to keep it down. Then, when a fire occurs the intensity is much greater as seen over the last seven or eight years in Victoria. A small low intensity fire with not much fuel can usually be controlled before it does much damage. With the huge fuel loads since the cattle were removed the fires are much harder to control.

Wonnangatta Station is a very popular place for 4wd based camping. When cattle were allowed there the grass was only ever ankle high. Since cattle were removed the grass grew to waist high. The potential for a disaster was high with maybe a few hundred people spread out and camping along the valley during holiday periods. It is a miracle there has not been a fire there in the hot months (not this year because summer seems to have avoided us) with there being no escape for many people.

Hopefully with the change in the Victorian government the current group will have more realistic views on proper management of the Victorian National Parks instead of heeding to the whims of the greens who gave preferences to the previous government.

[slug_burner]

In a native eco system the bush is regularly burned. low intensity fires are a common occurrence. Poor management by Parks Vic means that undergrowth builds up to a very high level with no cattle to keep it down. Then, when a fire occurs the intensity is much greater as seen over the last seven or eight years in Victoria. A small low intensity fire with not much fuel can usually be controlled before it does much damage. With the huge fuel loads since the cattle were removed the fires are much harder to control.

Wonnangatta Station is a very popular place for 4wd based camping. When cattle were allowed there the grass was only ever ankle high. Since cattle were removed the grass grew to waist high. The potential for a disaster was high with maybe a few hundred people spread out and camping along the valley during holiday periods. It is a miracle there has not been a fire there in the hot months (not this year because summer seems to have avoided us) with there being no escape for many people.

Hopefully with the change in the Victorian government the current group will have more realistic views on proper management of the Victorian National Parks instead of heeding to the whims of the greens who gave preferences to the previous government.

Providing feed for cattle maybe but land management? Don't know that it has much to do with it.

[Ranga]

Fair point, but I'd rather controlled burn-offs than cattle.

Out of curiosity, how did these burn-offs happen before settlement, and why don't they happen any more?

[abaddonxi]

Fair point, but I'd rather controlled burn-offs than cattle.

Out of curiosity, how did these burn-offs happen before settlement, and why don't they happen any more?

Fire-stick farming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-stick_farming)

[rovercare]

I agree, The cattle back is a good thing!

[rovercare]

Controlled burns, hahahaha, DSE and controlled burns, good luck with that:(

[amtravic1]

Fair point, but I'd rather controlled burn-offs than cattle.

Out of curiosity, how did these burn-offs happen before settlement, and why don't they happen any more?

Unfortunately, there seems to have been a policy by managers of our forests of the last 20? years or so to reduce or stop controlled burns.

[amtravic1]

Controlled burns, hahahaha, DSE and controlled burns, good luck with that:(

Well, more like uncontrolled burns.

[KarlB]

Before people start erroneously suggesting that Aboriginal people in our alpine areas used fire-stick burning, I suggest they have a look at:
The moth hunters: Aboriginal prehistory of the Australian Alps, by Josephine Flood. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, 1980.

They may also like to have a look at: Early Holocene human occupation and environment of the southeast Australian Alps: New evidence from the Yarrangobilly Plateau, New South Wales by Ken Aplin, Fred Ford and Peter Hiscock. ANU E Press, 2010. (http://epress.anu.edu.au/terra_australis/ta32/pdf/ch11.pdf (http://epress.anu.edu.au/terra_australis/ta32/pdf/ch11.pdf)).

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[abaddonxi]

Before people start erroneously suggesting that Aboriginal people in our alpine areas used fire-stick burning, I suggest they have a look at:
The moth hunters: Aboriginal prehistory of the Australian Alps, by Josephine Flood. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, 1980.

They may also like to have a look at: Early Holocene human occupation and environment of the southeast Australian Alps: New evidence from the Yarrangobilly Plateau, New South Wales by Ken Aplin, Fred Ford and Peter Hiscock. ANU E Press, 2010. (http://epress.anu.edu.au/terra_australis/ta32/pdf/ch11.pdf (http://epress.anu.edu.au/terra_australis/ta32/pdf/ch11.pdf)).

Cheers
KarlB
:)

Too slow, I already have.:D

[KarlB]

Some other useful references people may like to look at relating to this thread include:

Williams, R. J. (1991) Ecological Principles for Determining Stock Allocations on the Bogong High Plains, evidence to the independent panel, North East Region, Department of Conservation and Environment, Victoria.

Department of Sustainability and Environment (2005) Report of the Investigation into the Future of Cattle Grazing in the Alpine National Park, For the Alpine Grazing Taskforce, Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

But then again, they are government reports. Don’t believe them. What would they know?

Cheers
KarlB
:)
Nothing in all the world is more dangerouse than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity (Martin Luther King Jr, 1963)

[rovercare]

Cheers
KarlB
:)
Nothing in all the world is more dangerouse than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity (Martin Luther King Jr, 1963)



So you've often travelled the
Victorian high country, Karl?

[KarlB]

So you've often travelled the
Victorian high country, Karl?

Not as often as I would have liked but in addition to driving, I've walked over it several times including walking from Mt Skene to Mt Kosciuszko. I have roamed over much of the NSW alpine area, both on foot and cross country skis. I have also worked professionally in natural land management and associated fields for the past 30 years (including work relating to alpine area management), and continue to do so. My current employer describes me as an ecologist. How about you Rovercare?

[rocket scientist]

Gazillions of deer, wild brumbies, pigs, wild dogs and cats etc etc.

What's a few hundred cattle going to do?

(dons flamesuit :) )

Sounds like someone who actually has been to the high country recently.
There has ben a noticeable increase in deer numbers over the past couple of years. I only have to walk up the road in the morning and I nearly get run over by them!
And don't get me started on wild dogs and feral cats. Nothing serious has been done to cut their numbers down. Where are the greenies when you need them.
:mad:

[Redback]

One thing I've noticed when travelling the NSW/VIC high country, is where there are cattle, there are areas of bare ground, dirty creeks full of cow crap and hoof marks and lots and lots of flys, less native animals, more Lantana, blackberries and other weeds that shouldn't be there, when cows and sheep eat grass they tear it out roots and all, which cause bare areas that in some cases don't grow back.

I think it's a stupid Idea and if you think it will reduce bush fire risk, then these people are dumber than I thought.

Baz.

[vnx205]

I can understand why some people believe that grazing in the Alpine regions would reduce fire risk. It seems intuitive that if the cattle eat some of the fuel there will be less to burn. However the fact that something seems obvious does not make it right.

Several studies have established that grazing does not help reduce fires. The fire might be less severe in one localised area, but it does nothing to stop the spread or the overall severity of the fire. Major fires driven by strong winds and embers are quite capable of leapfrogging over even a heavily grazed area.

A CSIRO report
Fire and grazing in Australian Alpine landscapes (Fact Sheet) (http://www.csiro.au/resources/AlpineGrazingAndFire.html)
concluded:
There was no statistically significant difference between grazed and ungrazed areas in the proportion of points burnt. Fire occurrence was determined primarily by vegetation type, with the proportion burnt being 0.87 for closed-heath , 0.59 for open- 0.13 for grassland and all snow-patch herbfield points unburnt. In both closed-heath and open-heath, grazing did not significantly lower the severity of fire, as measured by the diameter of burnt twigs.
and
We interpret the lack of a grazing effect in terms of shrub dynamics (little or no grazing effect on long-term cover of taller shrubs), diet and behaviour of cattle (herbs and dwarf shrubs eaten; tall shrubs not eaten and closed-heath vegetation generally avoided), and fuel flammability (shrubs more flammable than grass). Whatever effects livestock grazing may have on vegetation cover, and therefore fuels in alpine landscapes, they are likely to be highly localised, with such effects unlikely to translate into landscape-scale reduction of fire occurrence or severity.

A lot of people who claim that it is obvious that grazing reduces the fuel load are ignoring the fact that cattle do not eat the vegetation that contributes most to the fuel load and the fact that their impact tends to be localised while severe fires are not local. The fact that the grass may be shorter in one paddock or valley is not going to save the general area from fire.

The evidence shows that:
The use of livestock grazing in Australian alpine environments as a fire abatement practice is not justified on scientific grounds.

[KarlB]

The attached document: Fire Ecology and Management in Victorian Alpine Landscapes by CSIRO's Dick Williams, also provides useful discussion of the issues.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[one_iota]

Karl your post adds fuel to the fire.;)

If I was the Vic Govt I'd be very worried about the inpending Federal Govt investigation and decision with regards to the legalities of their action.

Of course assemble ten scientists in a room and you'll get ten different theories.;)

But what benefit comes from grazing 400 cattle for six years apart from more protein and methane.

[PAT303]

When were cattle first allowed in the Park?,I imagine it was a long time ago?. Pat

[Xtreme]

When were cattle first allowed in the Park?,I imagine it was a long time ago?. Pat

Heritage

Aboriginal people went to and through the Alpine area over thousands of years, and knew its flora, fauna, geography and seasonal changes intimately. Groups visited the Alps in summer to hold ceremonies and gather the nutritious Bogong Moths that shelter there. Today, Aboriginal communities in Victoria, NSW and the ACT take a particular interest in the management and heritage of the high country. Much more of the Alps’ Aboriginal heritage was revealed by the fires of 2003 and archaeological surveys were carried out in the following year.

European pastoralists from NSW started moving south into the Alps in the 1830s. Grazing began around Omeo in 1836, and runs were taken up in the foothills. Summer grazing soon extended to the higher country, and huts were built there for shelter and storage during stock mustering. You can experience this history by visiting the cattlemen's huts dotted along the high plains or the ruins of Wonnangatta Station (home of the pioneer Bryce family for many years). Wallaces Hut near Falls Creek, built in 1889, is one of the oldest surviving huts in the area. Sadly many huts and other heritage sites were burnt in the fires of 2003.

From the 1850s to around 1900, gold lured many people to the Alps. Relics can still be seen in Historic Areas adjacent to the park, and towns like Dargo, Harrietville, Mitta Mitta, Omeo and Bright have strong links to the gold era.

The 1939 bushfires in the forests around Melbourne and the boom in house-building after World War II led to a greatly increased demand for timber from the Alps. This resulted in the building of a network of roads that helped open the Alps to visitors. Today tourism is one of the most important activities in the Alpine area.

The fires of December 2006-January 2007 have resulted in further heritage loss. Surveys and restoration works are under way or planned.

From the above, courtesy of Vic Parks, cattle were introduced to the high country 175 years ago and have enjoyed summer grazing there for 169 years until they were evicted in 2005 (IIRC).
The Alpine NP was declared in 1989 and for some years prior to that, the area was managed by the Land Conservation Council (LCC)

There was a movie called 'Cool Change' made around 1975 which depicts the battle between the cattlemen and NP's when they tried to stop cattle grazing in the high country. Well worth watching if you can get a copy of it.

[PAT303]

So what damage have the cattle done?,if they have been there for 175 years what improved in the 5 years they weren't?. Pat

[vnx205]

So what damage have the cattle done?,if they have been there for 175 years what improved in the 5 years they weren't?. Pat

According to these articles:

www.australianalps.environment.gov.au/learn/pubs/grazing.pdf

www.ecolsoc.org.au/Position_papers/documents/AlpineGrazing.pdf

Grazing by livestock in the sub-alpine and alpine zones represents a significant threat to water, soil, nature conservation and biodiversity values.

[amtravic1]

I have as much faith in those Government funded reports as I would in a drug dealer.
The Government wanted the cattle out because the conservationists wanted the cattle out. It is all about votes. Just look at the book called Alps at the Crossroads, written by the conservationists way back in the seventies. You produce a nice glossy book or report full of so called facts and there is always someone who will believe it. Just because someone writes something in a report or book does not make it fact.
The only reports you can believe are ones written by totally independent organisations, if you could find one.

I find it interesting that many people commenting on this topic seem to have little experience in the Victorian bush. You can read all the reports you like, nothing counts like first hand experience in my opinion.

Ian

[vnx205]

That's odd. One of the few people who has commented and who has detailed his experience of the Victorian Alpine regions seemed to me to have a wealth of experience. I wasn't aware that other people's experience had been made public. Unless of course you just assume that anyone who opposes grazing must have no experience. :)

One problem that can arise with first hand experience is that it can be limited to a particular aspect of a particular area. Published papers tend to take a broader view, which makes them more useful.

If anyone's first hand experience can provide evidence which addresses the points raised in some of the articles that have been quoted and linked, I would be only too happy to read them. Just dismissing them because they have some connection with the government doesn't give me much information to further my understanding of the issue.

[Xtreme]

According to these articles:

www.australianalps.environment.gov.au/learn/pubs/grazing.pdf (http://www.australianalps.environment.gov.au/learn/pubs/grazing.pdf)

www.ecolsoc.org.au/Position_papers/documents/AlpineGrazing.pdf (http://www.ecolsoc.org.au/Position_papers/documents/AlpineGrazing.pdf)

Grazing by livestock in the sub-alpine and alpine zones represents a significant threat to water, soil, nature conservation and biodiversity values.

I guess the same statement could be made about us driving 4WD's and camping in the same sub-alpine and alpine zones (or existing/living anywhere) ................... so how long do you think it will be before before we are locked out? It's a pity that some people still don't understand how the 'extremes' operate.

I've been touring the Victorian high country for over twenty years and have observed that IMHO it was in better condition up until 2005 when the cattle were there and the mountain cattlemen managed the area than since then when the wild dog, pig and deer populations have uncontrollably multiplied in their unmanaged state. The mountain cattlemen looked after the high country (for 175 years) and in my books that is a pretty good record.

[Xtreme]

That's odd. One of the few people who has commented and who has detailed his experience of the Victorian Alpine regions seemed to me to have a wealth of experience. I wasn't aware that other people's experience had been made public. Unless of course you just assume that anyone who opposes grazing must have no experience. :)

One problem that can arise with first hand experience is that it can be limited to a particular aspect of a particular area. Published papers tend to take a broader view, which makes them more useful.

If anyone's first hand experience can provide evidence which addresses the points raised in some of the articles that have been quoted and linked, I would be only too happy to read them. Just dismissing them because they have some connection with the government doesn't give me much information to further my understanding of the issue.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your view that "Published papers tend to take a broader view ......." as they are usually written to make a particular point and seldom disclose all aspects of a situation.

If you wish "to further your understanding of the issue" and gain an insight into the other side of the situation, then have a browse at some of the articles here Mountain Cattlemens Association of Victoria (http://www.mcav.com.au/)

[vnx205]

I have read a few of the articles in the link you provided. I will have a look at some more in the morning when I am more wide awake.

However my impression so far is that some of the articles just repeat the claim that removing the cattle made the fires more catastrophic, but don't elaborate or counter the evidence offered by the CSIRO and other sources. They just make the statement without evidence.

I am prepared to keep looking, but I have to say that so far I have not seen any specific evidence to counter the opposing arguments such as the problem of selective grazing by cattle changing the vegetation and the impact of hard hoof animals on peat bogs.

However as I said, I will read more tomorrow.

[vnx205]

As promised, I have read more of the articles on The MCAV site and found some of them interesting.

The best one to read if you don't want to wade through all 263 pages of the senate report is probably this one. I think it represents the most recent, comprehensive explanation of the MCAV point of view.

http://www.mcav.com.au/documents/Fire%20paper%20sept%202010.pdf

I still have a few questions though. The MCAV makes a point about the descriptions of the bush given by early settlers and explorers. They emphasise the fact that much of the country was open grassland that was less of a fire hazard. Surely at the time it was seen by early settlers and explorers, the country had only been subjected to the indigenous practice of cool, mosaic burns (although the evidence about how long the aborigines had been carrying out the practice in that area in inconclusive. Surely when it was first seen by those settlers and explorers, it had not been grazed by cattle. Yet I get the impression that the MCAV rely on the fact that the country used to be more open grassland as evidence that grazing helped keep it that way. Surely at that time there had not yet been any grazing.

A lot of the criticism of some of the research which has concluded that grazing to reduce fire is not justifiable is based on the claim that the researchers had already taken the stand that grazing should be banned. The MCAV argue that their opinion is therefore suspect. I would have though that th MCAV had an even stronger commitment to allowing grazing. If we apply the same rules, then their evidence should also be suspect.

One point that I have not seen addressed by the MCAV is the the claim that cattle graze selectively and that their selective grazing reduces the fuel load of some grasses, but does nothing to reduce the density of scrubby plants that contribute more to the fuel load. There has even been the suggestion that this selective grazing leads to a proliferation of undesirable vegetation. Is this not a problem? Even if it isn't, I would expect them to address the issue since it is a specific point made by some of those who oppose grazing.

The document is worth reading whether you agree or not. It is worth knowing why the MCAV holds the view that it does.

[isuzurover]

Some "hard" science:


Does alpine grazing reduce blazing? A landscape test of a widely-held hypothesis
Author(s): Williams RJ (Williams, Richard J.), Wahren CH (Wahren, Carl-Henrik), Bradstock RA (Bradstock, Ross A.), Muller WJ (Muller, Warren J.)
Source: AUSTRAL ECOLOGY Volume: 31 Issue: 8 Pages: 925-936 Published: DEC 2006
Times Cited: 11 References: 45 Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: 'Alpine grazing reduces blazing' is a widely and strongly held view concerning the effects of livestock grazing on fuels, and therefore fire behaviour and impact, in Australia's high country landscapes. As a test of this hypothesis, we examined the patterns of burning across the alpine (treeless) landscapes of the Bogong High Plains in Victoria, following the extensive fires of January 2003. Data were collected from multiple transects, each 3-5 km long, with survey points located randomly at either 50, 200 or 500 m intervals. The transects traversed the major regions of the Bogong High Plains, both grazed and ungrazed. At each point, we recorded whether the point was burnt or unburnt, the vegetation type (closed-heath, open-heath, grassland or herbfield), the estimated prefire shrub cover, slope, aspect, and a GPS location. At burnt heathland sites, we recorded the minimum twig diameter (an a posteriori measure of fire severity) in a sample of common shrubs. In total, there were 108 km of transect lines, 419 survey points and 4050 twig measurements, with sample points equally distributed across grazed and ungrazed country. The occurrence of fire (i.e. burnt or unburnt) in grazed and ungrazed areas was analysed by logistic regression; the variation in twig diameters by ANOVA. Approximately half of all points were burnt. There was no statistically significant difference between grazed and ungrazed areas in the proportion of points burnt. Fire occurrence was determined primarily by vegetation type, with the proportion burnt being 0.87 for closed-heath, 0.59 for open-heath, and 0.13 for grassland and all snow-patch herbfield points unburnt. In both closed-heath and open-heath, grazing did not significantly lower the severity of fire, as measured by the diameter of burnt twigs. We interpret the lack of a grazing effect in terms of shrub dynamics (little or no grazing effect on long-term cover of taller shrubs), diet and behaviour of cattle (herbs and dwarf shrubs eaten; tall shrubs not eaten and closed-heath vegetation generally avoided), and fuel flammability (shrubs more flammable than grass). Whatever effects livestock grazing may have on vegetation cover, and therefore fuels in alpine landscapes, they are likely to be highly localized, with such effects unlikely to translate into landscape-scale reduction of fire occurrence or severity. The use of livestock grazing in Australian alpine environments as a fire abatement practice is not justified on scientific grounds.
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Author Keywords: alpine vegetation; Bogong High Plains; fire; landscape ecology; livestock grazing
KeyWords Plus: BOGONG HIGH-PLAINS; NATIONAL-PARK; NORTHERN AUSTRALIA; FIRE SEVERITY; VEGETATION; GRASSLAND; HEATHLAND; ENVIRONMENT; MANAGEMENT; INTENSITY
Addresses:
1. La Trobe Univ, Ctr Appl Alpine Ecol, Melbourne, Vic Australia
2. NSW Dept Environm & Conservat, Biodivers Conservat Sci Sect, Hurstville, NSW Australia
3. CSIRO Math & Informat Sci, Canberra, ACT Australia

Unless anyone can find a flaw in the experimental method, then there isn't much to argue about wrt fire and grazing.

[PAT303]

With all these types of situations I find it odd that after many years,in this case 175,suddenly there is a problem.If the cattle are doing damage on the high country why did it take so long for the problem to be fixed?.To me it is nothing more than the tree huggers having one of their normal hissy fits. Pat

[mox]

This is a stupid decision that is more likely to increase the risk of fire than reduce it. The economic returns are far out weighed by the land management costs. Several species on the brink of extinction are likely to be seriously impacted. The damage from earlier grazing is still evident. This is ignorant vandalism, plain and simple. What a great move indeed!

KarlB
:mad:

I am one of those who regards the above as basically completely wrong.
There is overall strong support for return of cattle grazing in districts around National Parks, primarily to reduce the fire hazard. Properly managed cattle grazing causes minimal damage compared with hot wildfires it considerably reduces the risk of.

Opposition to grazing comes largely from inadequately informed city people who unfortunately swallow a lot of the lies and half truths peddled by green groups led by zealots. When locals invite them to visit and inspect the areas affected and discuss issues, they rarely accept and if they do, often effectively will not heed advice.

One common claim green groups often make is that cattle grazing causes risk of extinction of some native species. They don't want to know that these species have often co -existed with cattle for over 100 years and wildfires due to inadequate fire prevention measures pose a significant threat to their existance.

The recent visit by Federal Minister Tony Burke to one area of the Victorian grazing trial was a disgrace. For show pandering to the Greens Party whose support Labor needs to stay in power rather than genuine consultation. It would be expected that he should meet and discuss the issues with the owners of cattle in the trial and representatives of the Mountain Cattlemen's Association. However, he only met with greens group representatives. Check www.cowpad.info (http://www.cowpad.info)

Re a supposed scientific`study which supposedly showed that grazing does not reduce fire risk and the former Victorian Government used to justify removing cattle grazing compared growth in a grazing lease compared with a similar ungrazed`area and concluded that it had no effect. Not surprising, because the lease owners had not had cattle in there that year.

Re all the "scientists" who supposedly oppose grazing, I doubt many of them have much, if any specialised knowledge of the issue and their scientific expertise is in other areas. Also, what is their combined firefighting experience? Most likely negligible. What is needed is a well publicised survey of opinions of people with actual experience in fighting grass and forest fires on whether cattle grazing overall reduces fire risk and makes fires easier to control. . Especially those who have put in large amounts of time in voluntary capacity and maybe sometimes risked their lives fighting fires which often may not have occurred or been anwhere as large if not for opposition to fire hazard`mitigation measures by radical greenies. To them it is obvious that overall, grazing considerably reduces fire hazard.

I wonder if any of the "scientists" who express disapproval due to their pet notions and /or political preferences would want to publicly debate the issue with experienced firefighters.

Regarding the bill proposed by recently elected Greens Party representative for the Federal seat of Melbourne to stop the National Park grazing trial in Victoria: How would city politicians and their constituents like it if the government imposed policies that adversely affected them because of pressure from a few zealots from outlying rural areas who rarely visited the city and took no notice of people living there? Would obviously regard this as totally unacceptable. Why should the likes of Adam Bandt trying to force their policies on people in other areas who oppose them not be equally unacceptable?

I find`most city people will listen to logical reasoning and many who initially accept radical green views reject them when they hear the other side of the story. Also, many who get around country areas at times have similar views on conservation issues as locals.

[one_iota]

snip....There is overall strong support for return of cattle grazing in districts around National Parks, primarily to reduce the fire hazardsnip. .....

Forgive the selective edit mox. :)

The issue is about grazing in national parks.



I find`most city people will listen to logical reasoning and many who initially accept radical green views reject them when they hear the other side of the story. Also, many who get around country areas at times have similar views on conservation issues as locals.

I'm a person who lives in the city, but who also grew up in the country and I have a view that differs radically from yours. So all I can do is look at the Science and compare that with my experience....I've had fires go through my backyard when I lived next to the Lane Cove National Park in the City and no one has suggested that cattle should be grazed there.

[vnx205]

So you know for a fact that none of the following is really a problem?
Cattle Grazing in the Alpine National Park (http://www.melbournebushwalkers.org.au/activities/Conservation/cattle_grazing.php)
In particular, cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park:


causes extensive damage to alpine and sub-alpine peat bogs, through the trampling of sphagnum and peat, subsequent lowering of the water table and eventual drying out of these wetland areas (bogs occupy around 1,300 ha of the Bogong High Plains alone);
significantly affects the water regime in the alps, through the aforementioned processes;
is a threat to soil conservation in the alps, with extensive soil loss on the high plains and subsequent siltation of streams.
has been shown to affect the distribution of both terrestrial and underwater invertebrates;
pollutes mountain streams, making them unsafe sources of drinking water for walkers and other park visitors;
affects, through the above processes, many of Victoria's major rivers (the Murray, the Snowy, the Kiewa, the Mitta Mitta, the Ovens, the Macalister and the Mitchell have all or some of their headwaters in grazing licence areas);
changes the species composition of grasslands, with greatly reduced occurrence of tall, showy herbs (eg Snow Daisies);
severely degrades large areas of heathland and grassland, particularly by significantly increasing the abundance of bare ground, and often increasing the abundance of flammable shrubs;
has caused the spread of weeds (eg Broom, Bent Grass) particularly through the increases in areas of bare ground;
increasingly leaves the high plains vulnerable to invasion by new highly invasive weed species, such as Orange Hawk Weed;


And I suppose you don't accept any of the following either.
Victorian National Parks Association / Publications / Fact sheets / FAQ sheet - cattle grazing in the alps (http://vnpa.org.au/page/publications/fact-sheets/faq-sheet-_-cattle-grazing-in-the-alps)
The ecological impacts of alpine grazing
Question: Does cattle grazing have a negative impact on the Alpine environment?
Answer: Yes, there is over 60 years worth of scientific research and government reports showing that cattle affect water catchments, soil and nature conservation values, and spoil visitors' enjoyment of the national park.
In particular, cattle:
Trample stream-banks, springs and soaks.
Damage and destroy fragile alpine mossbeds.
Pollute water.
Create tracks.
Cause soil erosion.
Reduce what should be spectacular wildflower displays.
Spread weeds.
Are known to be a significant threat to a number of rare and threatened plants and
animals, and plant communities.
Cover areas in cowpats and spoil the enjoyment of the area for visitors.
Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment Q&A, 2005

[vnx205]

With all these types of situations I find it odd that after many years,in this case 175,suddenly there is a problem.If the cattle are doing damage on the high country why did it take so long for the problem to be fixed?.To me it is nothing more than the tree huggers having one of their normal hissy fits. Pat

When you refer to the problem being fixed, do you mean the problem of the cattle being there and causing damage or do you mean the problem of the damage that was done?

If the former, then the answer to why it took so long to fix the problem is probably because of the political clout of the cattlemen. If the latter, then the answer is probably that some of the damage done by the cattle takes time to recover and some may be irreparable.

[isuzurover]

With all these types of situations I find it odd that after many years,in this case 175,suddenly there is a problem.If the cattle are doing damage on the high country why did it take so long for the problem to be fixed?.To me it is nothing more than the tree huggers having one of their normal hissy fits. Pat

That is a completely spurious / flawed argument.

You could say the same about whaling. Whaling was going on for 5000 years before it stopped. Why did it take so long for whaling to be stopped??? Obviously hippie tree huggers are to blame, whaling can't have been doing any harm by your criteria.

[PAT303]

Well what species are threatened by the cattle?,what has disappeared because of the cattle?,how much area does the NP take up and how much of it has cattle grazing on it?.From what I've read no animals have been wiped out by the cattle and no plants have either.My argument flawed?,whaling was stopped because they killed almost all the whales,again what have the cattle wiped out?.Lastly why all the hype about a thousand or so cattle,there are camels in record numbers and growing around the Pilbara,but no one gives a crap about them. Pat

[isuzurover]

Well what species are threatened by the cattle?


Alpine and subalpine snow patch vegetation on the Bogong High Plains, SE Australia
Author(s): Wahren CH, Williams RJ, Papst WA
Source: JOURNAL OF VEGETATION SCIENCE Volume: 12 Issue: 6 Pages: 779-790 Published: DEC 2001
Times Cited: 6 References: 67 Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: Snow patch vegetation in Australia is rare, being restricted to the relatively small area of alpine and subalpine country in the highlands of southeastern Australia. Snow patch vegetation occurs on steeper, sheltered southeastern slopes, where snow persists until well into the growing season (December/January). We surveyed the vegetation of 33 snow patch sites in the alpine and subalpine tracts of the Bogong High Plains, within the Alpine National Park, in Victoria. The vegetation was dominated by herbs and graminoids, with few shrubs and mosses. Major structural assemblages identified included closed herb-fields dominated by Celmisia spp, and grasslands dominated by Poa fawcettiae or Poa costiniana. These assemblages occurred on mineral soils. Open herb-fields dominated by Caltha introloba and several sedge species occurred on rocky and stony substrata. Vegetation-environment relationships were explored by ordination and vector fitting. There was significant variation in the floristic composition of snow patch vegetation as a function of duration of snow cover, altitude, slope and site rockiness. Alpine sites were floristically distinct from subalpine sites, with a greater cover of Celmisia spp. and a lesser cover of low shrubs in the former. There was floristic variation within some snow patches as a function of slope position (upper, middle or lower slope) but this was not consistent across sites. The current condition of snow patch vegetation on the Bogong High Plains is degraded, with bare ground exceeding 20% cover at most sites. Snow patch vegetation is utilized preferentially by domestic cattle, which graze parts of the Bogong High Plains in summer. Such grazing is a potential threat to this rare vegetation type.
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Author Keywords: grassland; herb-field; national park; nivation; non-metric multidimensional scaling; ordination; snow bank; vector fitting
KeyWords Plus: PATTERNS; TASMANIA; ACCUMULATION; COMMUNITIES; GRASSLANDS; HEATHLAND; DYNAMICS; VICTORIA
Reprint Address: Williams, RJ (reprint author), CSIRO, PMB 44, Winnellie, NT 0821 Australia
Addresses:
1. CSIRO, Winnellie, NT 0821 Australia
2. La Trobe Univ, Dept Agr Sci, Bundoora, Vic 3083 Australia
3. Dept Nat Resources & Environm, Ctr Land Protect Res, Melbourne, Vic Australia


LONG-TERM VEGETATION CHANGE IN RELATION TO CATTLE GRAZING IN SUB-ALPINE GRASSLAND AND HEATHLAND ON THE BOGONG HIGH-PLAINS - AN ANALYSIS OF VEGETATION RECORDS FROM 1945 TO 1994
Author(s): WAHREN CHA, PAPST WA, WILLIAMS RJ
Source: AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY Volume: 42 Issue: 6 Pages: 607-639 Published: 1994
Times Cited: 44 References: 64 Citation MapCitation Map
Abstract: Changes in vegetation composition and structure are described for grassland and heathland communities on the Bogong High Plains, in the Victorian Alpine National Park. The data are based on long-term records collected from permanent reference plots over the period 1945 to 1994 from plots established in 1945, 1946 and 1979. In the Pretty Valley grassland plots, established in 1946, cattle grazing has prevented the large-scale regeneration of a number of tall, palatable forbs and short, palatable shrubs, while in the absence of grazing, the cover of these Life forms increased substantially. The amount of bare ground and loose litter was significantly greater on the grazed compared with the ungrazed plot. Between 1979 and 1994, there was little or no identifiable trend in the cover of Vegetation or bare ground at either the Pretty Valley grazed site, or two additional grazed grassland sites established nearby in 1979. The current condition of grazed grassland on the Bogong High Plains is interpreted as stable, yet degraded. Improvement in condition will occur in the absence of grazing. In the Rocky Valley open heathland plots, established in 1945, increases in shrub cover over the study period were due to growth of shrubs following the 1939 bushfires that burnt much of the Bogong High Plains. From 1945-1979 shorter-lived shrubs increased in cover; since 1979, these shrubs have senesced, and are being replaced mainly by grasses. On the grazed plot longer lived, taller shrubs have continued to increase in cover and are not senescing. Between 1979 and 1989, total shrub cover declined on the ungrazed plot, but increased on the grazed plot. There was no evidence that grazing has reduced shrub cover, and therefore potential fire risk, in open heathland. These findings have significant management implications for the Alpine National Park and are consistent with those from other regions in the Australian alps.
Document Type: Article
Language: English
KeyWords Plus: SERENGETI-NATIONAL-PARK; ARTIFICIAL DISTURBANCES; RANGE TRANSECTS; ALPINE RANGE; COMMUNITIES; VICTORIA; AUSTRALIA; KOSCIUSKO; TRENDS; PERTURBATIONS
Reprint Address: WAHREN, CHA (reprint author), MONASH UNIV, DEPT ECOL & EVOLUT BIOL, CLAYTON, VIC 3168 AUSTRALIA
Addresses:
1. DEPT CONSERVAT & NAT RESOURCES, MELBOURNE, VIC 3002 AUSTRALIA
Publisher: C S I R O PUBLICATIONS, 150 OXFORD ST, PO BOX 1139, COLLINGWOOD VICTORIA 3066, AUSTRALIA
IDS Number: QD749
ISSN: 0067-1924

And for the record, I am not an ecologist and I am not too concerned about the cattle one way or the other.

However, it is clear even from a cursory glance at the independant scientific literature:
(1) There is no evidence that grazing reduces fire intensity - so that argument is political BS
(2) There is evidence that grazing has had a reasonably significant ecological impact.

Anyone who denies those two points has their head up their proverbial.

Whether points 1 and 2 mean that grazing should be stopped is another matter though.

[DeeJay]

With all these types of situations I find it odd that after many years,in this case 175,suddenly there is a problem.If the cattle are doing damage on the high country why did it take so long for the problem to be fixed?.To me it is nothing more than the tree huggers having one of their normal hissy fits. Pat

I first visited Wonnangatta in 1969.The road that "opened up" the majority of the high plains was only opened just before that, being the Howitt Rd.- and that was put in for the loggers- We only saw one other vehicle for the week we were there ( I just remembered the large beer cans we took in- 1 pint I think).
Fourwheel driving only really became popular in the 70's & look where it is now. Same with communication.
So that's my slant on why it's suddenly a problem, just get out there & go off the tracks & find where the cattle wallow- yuck..

[Treads]

snip.. Properly managed cattle grazing causes minimal damage compared with hot wildfires it considerably reduces the risk of.

Opposition to grazing comes largely from inadequately informed city people who unfortunately swallow a lot of the lies and half truths peddled by green groups led by zealots.

Grazing does not reduce fire risk in alpine and heavily wooded areas. It only reduces fuel loadings in predominantly grassland tracts through these areas. Last I looked cattle do not eat the leaf litter & twigs smaller than 6mm that contributes most to the speed and ferocity of a fast moving forest fire.

I'm certainly not a city person either..... :cool:


Re all the "scientists" who supposedly oppose grazing, I doubt many of them have much, if any specialised knowledge of the issue and their scientific expertise is in other areas. Also, what is their combined firefighting experience? Most likely negligible. What is needed is a well publicised survey of opinions of people with actual experience in fighting grass and forest fires on whether cattle grazing overall reduces fire risk and makes fires easier to control. . Especially those who have put in large amounts of time in voluntary capacity and maybe sometimes risked their lives fighting fires which often may not have occurred or been anwhere as large if not for opposition to fire hazard`mitigation measures by radical greenies. To them it is obvious that overall, grazing considerably reduces fire hazard.

I wonder if any of the "scientists" who express disapproval due to their pet notions and /or political preferences would want to publicly debate the issue with experienced firefighters.

I'd be one of those people who has put in vast amounts of time fighting fires. 17 years of varied roles including RAFT, aviation & for the past few years as a Group Officer.

Sure I'll admit that grazing is an effective means of hazard reduction in pasture country; but as stated above it does sweet FA in timbered land.

I dunno who you think you're talking to here; however it appears the likes of isuzurover, vnx205 & one_iota are using sound ecological, science-based evidence to support their claims. The pro-grazing mob are just sounding emotive :angel:

[PAT303]

I'd like to know if the deer are doing the damage that cattle get blamed for.I do know deer like shrubs and really go for fresh shoots and regrowth which isuzurover's post mentioned. Pat

[isuzurover]

I'd like to know if the deer are doing the damage that cattle get blamed for.I do know deer like shrubs and really go for fresh shoots and regrowth which isuzurover's post mentioned. Pat

Good point - deer and horses would undoubtedly play a part. I found this recent discussion paper:

Feral horses

The estimated feral horse population in the Alpine NP is approximately 3000, and populations are thought to be increasing. The main population is in the eastern alps, between Buenba Flat and Mount Tingaringy and from Tom Groggin south to Nunniong Plain. A smaller, isolated, population occurs on the Bogong High Plains, and there have also been occasional reports of feral horses in the Moroka River headwaters. All populations occur in both the Alpine National Park and adjacent State forest, as well as nearby freehold land. The eastern alps population also extends into Kosciuszko National Park in NSW.

The environmental effects of feral horses include soil loss, compaction and erosion, trampling of vegetation, reducing plant species richness, inducing mortality of native trees, damage to bog habitat and water bodies and weed dispersal (Nimmo 2005). Feral horses (mainly stallions) also occasionally harass or threaten park visitors and can pose a risk to vehicles on windy mountain roads. Horse populations across the Kosciuszko and Alpine National Parks increased by over 300% between April 2003 and April 2009 (Dawson 2009), despite control efforts in both states. The Bogong High Plains population has remained relatively static at about 100 horses over recent years, despite the removal of approximately 80 horses.

↑ Back To Top
Deer

Sambar are common and widespread in the planning area and anecdotal evidence suggests populations are increasing. Sambar are the most widely hunted deer in the planning area, and appear to remain common in areas open for hunting. Fallow and red deer populations are also thought to be increasing in the Alpine National Park. Sambar have recently been listed as a potentially threatening process under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (hyperlink). While population monitoring has recently commenced in the Alpine area, anecdotal observations have highlighted localised impacts such as trampling. See the Recreational Deer Hunting Discussion Paper for further information.

↑ Back To Top

I suppose the damage which deer and brumbies can do compared to cattle would be related to their mass to hoof area ratio, their population and their feeding habits.

However it is often the case that if one introduced species is removed, the population of another starts to become problematic. (just look at macquarie island).

However imagine the uproar from hunters if it was suggested the deer population should be eradicated... I am still amazed that there are closed seasons on feral animals (deer and trout).

I feel like a venison steak now...

[mns488]

I first visited Wonnangatta in 1969...

Wow, any old pics?

I first went in 2001 and try a pass through a few times a year.

[DeeJay]

I'd like to know if the deer are doing the damage that cattle get blamed for.I do know deer like shrubs and really go for fresh shoots and regrowth which isuzurover's post mentioned. Pat

The deer have habitats below the snowline from what I know. Ive never seen a deer or a Deer shooter, or any of thier dogs on the high country. They seem to prefer the headwaters & thick scrub.
As a matter of interest a mate of mine hit one in his Nissan Patrol ( & killed it ) & I mentioned it to a Deer Hunter & he picked exactly where it was. I only said near xxx , but he knew they only crossed the road in one place there.
Saw one with it's young near Licola recently. I had to screech to a halt ( well,in a landrover kinda way) as it was right in front of me - at night. It almost seemed tame the way it behaved, then a foal stumbled out of the bush behind it & the two disappeared. The guys behind then caught up & didn't believe me..

[amtravic1]

Deer do live above the snow line. I regularly see hunters well above the snow line in all Alpine areas. My brother stalks deer with a bow and arrow and gets most deer in the Alpine areas south of Myrtleford. The hunters even own property just down the road from my clubs property which borders the National Park.
The Alpine National Park is a haven for deer, wild dogs (which are becoming a serious problem for peoples safety), feral cats and pigs. Since the bush fires many areas are just a weed infested mess.

[Treads]

However imagine the uproar from hunters if it was suggested the deer population should be eradicated...

Not from this one; but I'd like to see anyone try ;) There are more Fallow in the mountains than anyone could count and eradication is simply not possible now. Opening more public land (NP's) to recreational hunting would be a good start for at least managing the problem.


I am still amazed that there are closed seasons on feral animals (deer and trout).

I feel like a venison steak now...

There is a closed season on Fallow & Red deer due to ethical reasons. Both these species have a very structured breeding cycle and between Nov-Mar it is highly likely that any doe/hind you see will have a dependant fawn at foot. Both these species commonly leave their young hidden in the edge of the bush line whist they feed in open paddocks. They are easy targets for hunters at this time and when the mother doesn't return a fawn will simply lay there until it starves to death.

During Nov-Mar it is also difficult to tell the difference between a female and a young Buck/Stag due to the fact that they have cast their antlers in Spring. Even in Oct it is often not possible to differentiate between the two until it's laying at your feet :angel:

We had beautifully marinated venison medallions last night for dinner :ohyes:

[waynep]

I have to say the debate on here is more informed and intelligent than anything I've read in the papers or heard on talkback radio.
You guys should be consulting to the Vic govt.

Other feral species introduced by European settlement such as horses, deer, rabbit, fox, and now dogs, we can't control without concerted effort.
With cattle, we have the choice. We need to make the right choice.

I have another idea, let's reduce the fire risk by spraying with aerial defoliant ( a la Vietnam ).
They have very safe ones now ( no more Agent Orange ).
Of course we wouldn't do that, but what I'm trying to say is you don't put in a cure that is worse than the disease, IMHO.

We have friends in the high country who are very much in support of the cattlemen, as well as on the other side.
I have enormous respect for those people and their knowledge of the bush. I listen to their opinions, fears and difficulties with "outsiders" coming in and changing their lifestyles.
And I've spent a fair bit of time myself up there over the years.
But while I see a large amount of sentiment and emotion, I still haven't seen a convincing argument for re-introduction that is good for the whole community.

[KarlB]

Somebody asked what threatened species would be affected by the grazing.

What follows is a list of those species that occur in the Victorian alpine area that are known to be adversely affected by cattle grazing. Additional species occur in the NSW and ACT alpine areas, but are not listed here. Note that the list is almost certainly not complete. Also note that the list does not include threatened species that are known to occur in the area but that are not considered likely to be impacted upon by cattle grazing.

In addition to the species listed below, there are at least 4 ecological communities that would be adversely affected by grazing.

All species and ecological communities are listed as threatened under Victorian legislation, and some are also listed by the Commonwealth.

Plants
Barbarea grayi Native Wintercress
Bartramia bogongia Bogong Apple-moss
Cardamine astoniae Spreading Bitter-cress
Cardamine franklinensis Franklin Bitter-cress
Craspedia alba White Billy-buttons
Craspedia lamicola Bog Billy-buttons
Deyeuxia affinis Allied Bent-grass
Deyeuxia talariata Skirted Bent-grass
Epilobium willisii Carpet Willow-herb
Euphrasia caudata Tailed Eyebright
Euphrasia eichleri Bogong Eyebright
Euphrasia lasianthera Hairy Eyebright
Euphrasia scabra Rough Eyebright
Gingidia harveyana Slender Gingidia
Juncus antarcticus Cushion Rush
Juncus thompsonianus Snowfield Rush
Kelleria laxa Snow Daphne
Luzula atrata Slender Woodrush
Orthotrichum hortense Gardener’s Bristle-moss
Oschatzia cuneifolia Wedge Oschatzia
Poa saxicola Rock Poa
Prasophyllum niphopedium Marsh Leek-orchid
Pterostylis oreophila Blue-tongue Greenhood
Rytidosperma australe Southern Sheep-grass

Animals
Cyclodomorphus praealtus Alpine She-oak Skink
Egernia guthega Alpine Egernia
Euastacus crassus Alpine Spiny Cray
Eulamprus kosciuskoi Alpine Water Skink
Pseudemoia cryodroma Alpine Bog Skink
Litoria verreauxii alpina Alpine Tree Frog
Thaumatoperla alpina Alpine Stonefly

Ecological Communities
Alpine Bog Community (mossbeds)
Fen (Bog Pool) Community
Alpine Snowpatch Community
Caltha introloba Herbland Community (associated with wetlands and snowpatch communities)

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[cewilson]

I'm very much in the same boat as Tread. I've been fighting fires since the 94/95 season and I'm doing my Group Leader course this year.

I have also been lucky enough to travel through the Victorian and NSW high country areas over the years.



From a fire viewpoint -

in Grasslands grazing will reduce the speed and intensity of a fire to a certain extent - that extent being the weather at the time. A catastrophic fire day will still see 3-5m flame heights from grass that only reaches your ankles - especially if there's a damn good wind behind it (which is normally the case).

in Forests grazing 'may' reduce the intensity of the ground fire, but that is it. The speed and intensity (aka 2009 VIC fires) will NOT change whatsoever especially if it is a crown fire (which is normally the case) on an extreme day.

To put that into perspective - in 09 a lot of the areas burnt where what we call urban areas - another words where the bush meets the city/town. A lot of areas where cleared and had people dotted throughout it. Did that stop or slow down the fire - not at all. You only had to look at how it went through the Hume Fwy to see that.

It wouldn't be any different in the High Country itself.


From a personal viewpoint:

Cattle DO cause damage. There can never be any doubt about that. What cattle do bring to the high country though, is PEOPLE - good people who manage the area very well. The tracks are cleared, the land is managed (in my opinion) better than it has been and they have an intimate knowledge of the area that no-one else does.

That is where they should be basing their argument in my opinion - but we all know that wouldn't stand any test of court or government.




So what to do:

Well I don't think cattle will stay there. And I can't see NPWS having any proper fire plan for the high country either (on either side of the border).

So basically unless something drastic changes, the situation will resort back to no-one is allowed in a NP during a total fire ban/code red/catastrophic fire danger day.

[mox]

Regarding the scientists who oppose cattle grazing, especially Dr Dick Williams of the CSIRO and his associates, they have academic qualifications that some people are impressed with but it is important to note that obviously the most important thing is that they are philosophically opposed to cattle grazing in National Parks. Of course they will then highlight evidence that supports their preference and downplay or ignore that which does not. (I have also seen plenty of this sort of thing from consultants who effectively start with the answers their client wants and work backwards to try and justify them.)

One tactic Dr Williams and his sympathisers seem to use is repeatedly quoting old studies that support their preference. A common green radical tactic is one used by Adolf Hitler: Repeat lies often enough and people are inclined to believe them. However, regarding details of these studies, cattlemen and others with knowledge of the issues can pick many of them to pieces.

I remember reading somewhere about the study by Dr Dick Williams concluding that cattle grazing does not reduce fire risk that the former Victorian Government apparently used to justify removing cattle from the Alpine National Park - I think the one quoted earlier by isuzurover. It compared two areas that had been burnt by wildfires. One had not been grazed and the other supposedly had. Concluded that there was no difference. Not surprising, as the holders of the lease of the supposed grazed area had not had cattle in there that year. If Dr Williams knew this, it was deliberate scientific fraud and if not, was incompetence for not checking his facts. Would be expected that that he would have at least asked the cattlemen concerned about the numbers of cattle they had in there and when they were put in and removed.

Unfortunately, as seems to be common with green activists everywhere, when locals invite them to come and look around and discuss issues they usually refuse and if they accept, usually go along with their cronies and ignore a lot of what they are told.

A classic example of this is the recent visit by Federal Minister Tony Burke to inspect the cattle grazing trial in Dargo area. An absolute disgrace! He deliberately avoided meeting the owner of the cattle and any representative of the Mountain Cattlemen's Association. See www.cowpad.info and the current issue of the Weekly Times for more on it.

I wonder where this matter will finish up. If Federal law overrides State law, would be interesting if state will not enforce it and cattlemen will not remove cattle. Extrememly unlikely the Federal Govt could find anyone with the gear and expertise to get them out who would touch such a job. Also, if previous protests by the Mountain Cattlemen in Melbourne are an indication, another would receive lots of support. One elsewhere at the same time as the last one supporting removal of cattle grazing from National Parks was very small by comparison.

Remember the main point of controlled cattle grazing in National Parks is to reduce damage to them from wildfires. Damage caused by cattle is small by comparison and recovery from it much more rapid.

[Disco44]

Regarding the scientists who oppose cattle grazing, especially Dr Dick Williams of the CSIRO and his associates, they have academic qualifications that some people are impressed with but it is important to note that obviously the most important thing is that they are philosophically opposed to cattle grazing in National Parks. Of course they will then highlight evidence that supports their preference and downplay or ignore that which does not. (I have also seen plenty of this sort of thing from consultants who effectively start with the answers their client wants and work backwards to try and justify them.)

One tactic Dr Williams and his sympathisers seem to use is repeatedly quoting old studies that support their preference. A common green radical tactic is one used by Adolf Hitler: Repeat lies often enough and people are inclined to believe them. However, regarding details of these studies, cattlemen and others with knowledge of the issues can pick many of them to pieces.

I remember reading somewhere about the study by Dr Dick Williams concluding that cattle grazing does not reduce fire risk that the former Victorian Government apparently used to justify removing cattle from the Alpine National Park - I think the one quoted earlier by isuzurover. It compared two areas that had been burnt by wildfires. One had not been grazed and the other supposedly had. Concluded that there was no difference. Not surprising, as the holders of the lease of the supposed grazed area had not had cattle in there that year. If Dr Williams knew this, it was deliberate scientific fraud and if not, was incompetence for not checking his facts. Would be expected that that he would have at least asked the cattlemen concerned about the numbers of cattle they had in there and when they were put in and removed.

Unfortunately, as seems to be common with green activists everywhere, when locals invite them to come and look around and discuss issues they usually refuse and if they accept, usually go along with their cronies and ignore a lot of what they are told.

A classic example of this is the recent visit by Federal Minister Tony Burke to inspect the cattle grazing trial in Dargo area. An absolute disgrace! He deliberately avoided meeting the owner of the cattle and any representative of the Mountain Cattlemen's Association. See The Cowpad (http://www.cowpad.info) and the current issue of the Weekly Times for more on it.

I wonder where this matter will finish up. If Federal law overrides State law, would be interesting if state will not enforce it and cattlemen will not remove cattle. Extrememly unlikely the Federal Govt could find anyone with the gear and expertise to get them out who would touch such a job. Also, if previous protests by the Mountain Cattlemen in Melbourne are an indication, another would receive lots of support. One elsewhere at the same time as the last one supporting removal of cattle grazing from National Parks was very small by comparison.

Remember the main point of controlled cattle grazing in National Parks is to reduce damage to them from wildfires. Damage caused by cattle is small by comparison and recovery from it much more rapid.

Well put Mox.
I have travelled extensively in both the Kosciuszko and the Alpine National parks.In particular the alpine Park when cattle were grazing there. Kosciuszko was declared in the late forties so I have scant knowledge of cattle in there.But one thing I noticed was that ,with cattle.the Alpine National was decidedly cleaner of pest weeds such as blackberries etc. On the NSW side the park was over run and the Authorities tried cleaning up using herbacides ( probably Round up).Sure it killed them but they never grubbed them out thus leaving acres upon acres of dead tinder dry brambles etc and they never seemed to get on top of them.Now that only adds to the fire hazards and in NSW 's case that is a lot to catch fire.I know that cloven hoof animals cause damage but the pads they use to get to water are old native animals pads and are in use anyway.IMHO opinion I think a trial will not hurt,at least it will keep the weeds down on the Victorian side and NSW will remain the same choked as usual.

[vnx205]

Post #67, second paragraph. Godwin's Law. :D

[one_iota]

The Federal Govt orders cattle out


Cattle ordered out of Victorian Alps - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/18/3167797.htm)

[Disco44]

Burke orders cattle out.Can someone tell me what right he has to do that.Doesn't the constitution cover State rights?

[mox]

Check the media release from the Mountain Cattlemens Association of Victoria soon after Tony Burke's posturing announcement. It was posted on www.cowpad.info (http://www.cowpad.info) a couple of days ago. Those following the Alpine Grazing issue who have not already done so should also read the earlier article "Minister for Hypocrisy."

Regarding his ordering cattle to be removed by 8th April, is is pointed out that many of them will have been taken home by then anyway due to seasonal conditions this year. Undoubtely Mr Burke would prefer the Greens, to who he has been pandering to believe it is because of strong action by jimself.

Note that people who live near the Alpine National Parks and their elected representatives are overall strongly in favour of cattle grazing to help reduce the fire hazard to their communities and the risk of major destruction of the environment in the Park by very hot wildfire. Leading the push to ban cattle grazing is recently elected Greens MP Adam Bandt, who is paid to represent an area around the Melbourne Central Business District in Federal Parliament.

He should mind his own bloody business. How would he or other politicians representing city seats like it if the Government imposed policies regarding public resources in their electorates that they and their constituents strongly opposed? Especially is the reason was because they were pandering mainly to a few zealots from outlying rural areas who rarely visited the city and actively tried to avoid discussing the issues with locals adversely affected by their misguided policies.

Undoubtedly city people and politicians would regard such a scenario as outrageous and totally unacceptable. Yet many of them obviously think they have a right to overrule the preferences of country communities.

[isuzurover]

Note that people who live near the Alpine National Parks and their elected representatives are overall strongly in favour of cattle grazing to help reduce the fire hazard to their communities and the risk of major destruction of the environment in the Park by very hot wildfire.

FFS - it has been conclusively proven that grazing does not reduce fire risk.

If you want to argue they should be in there for traditional reasons then fair enough, but enough of the BS.

[Disco44]

Post #67, second paragraph. Godwin's Law. :D

Nothing like sarcasm to liven up an argument is there.

[mox]

The claim parroted by isuzurover that 'it has been proven conclusively that grazing does not reduce fire risk" is one example of the way green groups peddle half truths and some blatant lies to try and justify their pet notions. Claims that scientific studies show that some plants may grow to become more become more flammable after grazing are probably correct. However, overall grazing can significantly reduce the fire hazard. It is obviously far more effective in some patches then others though.

Regarding the main supposed "scientific study" the former Victorian Government held up to try and justify their banning cattle grazing from the Alpine National Park, two similar areas were compared. One had not been grazed and the other was in a grazing lease. Conclusion was there was no significant difference in the fire hazard between them. Not surprising. The lease holders had not put cattle in there that year. This is either gross incompetence by the researcher not checking as obviously how many cattle were involved and when they were put in and removed would be an important comsideration. Or deliberate SCIENTIFIC FRAUD!

Many organisations, especially government ones are obliged at times to provide supposedly independent evidence to support policy decided on. Unfortunately it seems too common that they choose people with the similar philosophical preferences to themselves to do the work and /or the researchers are strongly obliged to provide the answers those paying them want. Therefore the effective approach is to start with desired conclusions and work backwards to try and justify them. Is not surprising that many academics, whose political preferences largely tend to support Labor and Greens would produce reports condemning Alpine cattle grazing if given a job studying it.

Also as happens at times in many trades and professions, sometimes it is necessary to decide where to draw the line between doing what the customer wants and compromising professional integrity. Obviously most Land Rover enthusiasts would realise how this can occur regarding mechanical repairs. Sometimes a quick/cheap/ rough job may be done when it is important to keep a vehicle /machine going for a limited period. However a self respecting mechanic would often flatly refuse to do a similar job in a non urgent situation, knowing it is unlikely to last and then he may be blamed for the failure. Likewise, some scientists will do shoddy work that on scrutiny is clearly unprofessional if expedient.

It seems that regarding at least most of the supposed scientific studies concluding that cattle grazing is overall detrimental, critics familiar with details can point out out major faults with evidence and methodology.

Consider ways cattle do reduce fire hazards: Depending on several factors they eat varying amounts of grass and other plant material. Also from walking around knock some down. There is a rule of thumb that often flames in grass fires are something like five times the height of the grass. When it is thin or matted on the ground and inch high, flames may be five inches high. The fire burns slowly and not very hot. However, when some plants in a patch of grass are five feet high, often fire will start with a quick whoosh of flames twenty five feet high, which can be very destructive and spread further rapidly. If cattle have walked through an area, knocked down a bit of grass and eaten a bit, it can make a vast reduction to the overall damage a fire does and problems putting it out. Also when fires are just creeping along, eg at night and /or on flanks of major fires, often they will stop at a cattle track.

Mountain cattlemen and other have photos taken after fires of places where they were stopped in grazed areas after coming out of areas that were not where they had caused much more environmental devastation. These deserve much more publicity.

In recent years it has become a common problem world wide with zealots, who actively try to avoid discussing issues with local people affected going overboard with beat ups about alleged environmental problems. They attract support from well meaning people - largely from affluent city area a long way away who then lobby governments for action without being properly informed of the whole story.

Do readers here think views of the likes of isuzurover, who lives in Perth area should override those of locals in Victorian Alpine areas? Including Mountain cattlemen, who I do know a few of.

[350RRC]

Burke orders cattle out.Can someone tell me what right he has to do that.Doesn't the constitution cover State rights?

The EPBC Act gives the feds the right to protect listed protected, threatened ane endangered species. Feds have signed international agreements to do this....... it gives Australia leverage in other areas internationally.

Personally, I'm involved in a couple of areas that are relevant here.

First is working for a couple of private companies that get gigs from water authorities and CMA's to assess freshwater fish populations and instream and streamside vegetation.

The amount of damage cattle do to the vegetation and water quality is very noticeable where streams are not fenced off. Weeds are also an issue.

As a representative of a commercial rock lobster fishery I was involved in the feds South East Marine parks working group. Of interest to AULRO members might be the fact that some forms of fishing are allowed in some areas of these marine parks because the catch is sustainable and most importantly : the form of fishing does not damage the identified features of that bio- region.

cheers, DL

[bee utey]

Do readers here think views of the likes of isuzurover, who lives in Perth area should override those of locals in Victorian Alpine areas? Including Mountain cattlemen, who I do know a few of.

Yes. I trust scientists more than cattlemen for looking at the big picture. Locals views are important but only by looking at all aspects of the situation can you make informed decisions. Vested interests clearly colour one's view.


The claim parroted by isuzurover

This sounds like a squawk...

[Xtreme]

Yes. I trust scientists more than cattlemen for looking at the big picture. Locals views are important but only by looking at all aspects of the situation can you make informed decisions. Vested interests clearly colour one's view.

This sounds like a squawk...

I wouldn't trust anyone to give an unbiassed view as everyone - scientists, cattlemen, pollies, 4WD'ers, etc etc. - is biassed in one way or another and that will come through in their reporting.

My biassed view of the situation, having read a lot of differing views from both sides and having visited the subject area over the past 20 years or so, is that the area was in better condition after the cattle had been there for more than 150 years than after the cattle had been eliminated and the area 'managed' by NP's for 5 years.

[bee utey]

I wouldn't trust anyone to give an unbiassed view as everyone - scientists, cattlemen, pollies, 4WD'ers, etc etc. - is biassed in one way or another and that will come through in their reporting.

My biassed view of the situation, having read a lot of differing views from both sides and having visited the subject area over the past 20 years or so, is that the area was in better condition after the cattle had been there for more than 150 years than after the cattle had been eliminated and the area 'managed' by NP's for 5 years.

Fair enough, however underfunding of the NP service is a crime too, which doesn't mean cattle are better for the environment than proper management. What is more important, make the natural parks reservoirs for threatened species, or turn them into giant cowboy theme parks? I don't have the answer but I distrust arguments loaded with emotions.

[Xtreme]

Fair enough, however underfunding of the NP service is a crime too, which doesn't mean cattle are better for the environment than proper management. What is more important, make the natural parks reservoirs for threatened species, or turn them into giant cowboy theme parks? I don't have the answer but I distrust arguments loaded with emotions.

If NP Service don't have the funds to manage effectively then why not hand the area back to those who have a proven (150 year) record? It may not be as good as what NP Service would like but it would be better than what NP Service have shown to be capable of under the present funding situation.

I don't recall the area being turned into "giant cowboy theme parks" during the 150 years that the cattlemen were sustainably managing it and haven't heard of any suggestions re "theme parks" in the future. :confused:

So where did that come from? Something to do with the 'emotions' maybe? :o

[bee utey]

So where did that come from? Something to do with the 'emotions' maybe? :o

Just being naughty.:p It's the opposite extreme of perfect management.

I just wish the answer was easier. Cattle did not co-evolve with Australian flora so they will do damage that native fauna won't. I realise achieving a faithful recreation of past conditions is impossible but there must be a better way of managing the national parks. Hopefully the fallout from this episode will bring some action on the poor state of the parks but I doubt the pollies are listening...

[Xtreme]

Cattle have co-evolved in the area for over 150 years.
I have already suggested a better way of managing the area - maybe not ideal but better than what has been practised during recent years.

[isuzurover]

...the likes of isuzurover, who lives in Perth area ...

I live in brisbane. I have spent a reasonable amount of time driving/hiking in the high country. None of that is relevant however.

Most of your posts in this thread are emotive rants against scientists and government authorities. I am yet to see where you have refuted any of the scientific studies.

Xtreme - evolution takes longer than 150 years...

[Xtreme]

I live in brisbane. I have spent a reasonable amount of time driving/hiking in the high country. None of that is relevant however.

Most of your posts in this thread are emotive rants against scientists and government authorities. I am yet to see where you have refuted any of the scientific studies.

Xtreme - evolution takes longer than 150 years...

But every year, month, day, minute etc is part of that process.

[ashhhhh]

This argument is an absolute joke.
Evolution has come into it now??

Go to any random paddock or bush area where cattle roam and it is always trashed and full of weeds.
Go to any alpine region and it is obvious what a delicate ecosystem it is.
Put the two together??
You don't need to be an expert or genius to see that cattle have no place in those regions, its called common sense.

No im not from Victoria, im not a fire fighter or scientist or a cow cocky - I just have a brain in my head.

[sschmez]

.....Go to any random paddock or bush area where cattle roam and it is always trashed and full of weeds..

Really ??????


No im not from Victoria, im not a fire fighter or scientist or a cow cocky - I just have a brain in my head.

and my eyes and mind firmly shut

[amtravic1]

This argument is an absolute joke.
Evolution has come into it now??

Go to any random paddock or bush area where cattle roam and it is always trashed and full of weeds.
Go to any alpine region and it is obvious what a delicate ecosystem it is.
Put the two together??
You don't need to be an expert or genius to see that cattle have no place in those regions, its called common sense.

No im not from Victoria, im not a fire fighter or scientist or a cow cocky - I just have a brain in my head.

We are talking about the Alpine areas of Victoria here. I am old enough to say I have literally spent tens of thousands of hours there. I know what my experience in the area is, I have seen the area with cattle and without. Give me cattle in the high country any time. Talk of cattle destroying delicate eco systems is absolute rubbish. People with out experience should just keep their mouths shut.
This is all about politics and the Labour Party promises to the Greens, nothing else and certainly not about the damage cattle may or may not do to any eco system.

Ian

[Xtreme]

We are talking about the Alpine areas of Victoria here. I am old enough to say I have literally spent tens of thousands of hours there. I know what my experience in the area is, I have seen the area with cattle and without. Give me cattle in the high country any time. Talk of cattle destroying delicate eco systems is absolute rubbish. People with out experience should just keep their mouths shut.
This is all about politics and the Labour Party promises to the Greens, nothing else and certainly not about the damage cattle may or may not do to any eco system.

Ian

x2^ ...... Exactly.

And if the Greens get their way, it won't only be the cattle that are eliminated from the Alpine areas either ................... mark my words.

[ashhhhh]

Are you 150 years old Ian?
Did you get to see the area before cattle were introduced?
Have you seen a pristine alpine environment?
Compare the two.

Then again what am I on about, theres still bushes and grass and stuff.. Its exactly the same!

Schmezz, no close minded attitude from me mate - though theres a bunch on this forum, most targeting anything even vaguely environmentally friendly.
Makes me worry about the Australia that my kids are gonna end up with.

[abaddonxi]

Not sure if this is appropriate, but think it will be of interest. It's not about alpine Victoria, and I'm not a farmer.

I own 100ha of land near Windeyer, NSW a friend owns about 5000ha near Comboyne, NSW. Both areas were settled by white people about the same time - 1860-70. Both properties have been owned by our families for about forty years. I have a pretty good idea about what's been done on both in that time.

Now to some differences- I'm at 950m they're at 600m. Mine has been ungrazed, uncultivated and barely visited for forty years, theirs has had people living there for twenty of the forty years and frequent visits the rest of the time.

The big difference - The boundary I share with the sheep is on the top of a very steep hill and has a decent fence, the sheep have grazed hard up to the wire. Their neighbour runs loose bush cattle that cross the river between the properties at will. There are also some wild dogs and semi-wild horse that come and go.

Their property is covered in blackberry, lantana, blade grass, you name it.

My place has nothing. The local council are obsessed with it because it is one of the few completely untouched pieces of bushland in the area and they want to keep it that way. There's one stand of blade grass.

This isn't some green pride thing, my family more or less bought the land and forgot about it until I bought them out five years ago.

I don't necessarily know that the difference is cattle, they have a huge amount more coming and going, and their neighbours are a lot closer.

[mox]

I live in brisbane. I have spent a reasonable amount of time driving/hiking in the high country. None of that is relevant however.

Most of your posts in this thread are emotive rants against scientists and government authorities. I am yet to see where you have refuted any of the scientific studies.

Xtreme - evolution takes longer than 150 years...

The former Government in Victoria used reports by selected scientists to try and justify its idealogical policy of no cattle in National Parks. Also pandering to radical green zealots to attract the perceived "green vote' in city electorates was also an important consideration.

Regarding government authorities and their employees, they have to work under policies directed by the Government. Employees are paid to implement policies directed by government and it is frowned on or more if they publicly disagree with them. However, sometimes a respected senior officer of a government organisation with problems resigns then causes his former masters lots of embarrassment with informed criticism.

Regarding forest /park management. where local views conflict with policies imposed by government, employees sympathetic to locals often bend rules and directives as much as they can get away with. Seems a recently publicised example is a grazier in Omeo area who had a lease in the Alpine National Park adjoining his property. The boundary fence was burnt in a fire and unlike those between private properties, the Govt does not pay half share of the large replacement cost. Without a functional fence, it was impracticable to keep cattle grazing on some private property out of the Park. Local Parks management, who undoubtedly approved of this grazing reducing fire risk in their area apparently took no action to have them removed after the lease was cancelled.

Regarding scientific opinions cited by the former State Government, which many people with background knowledge on Alpine Grazing issues disagree with, what I said could not be more than something like an emotive rant because explanation of why they are wrong requires considerable detail.

Now look at what the present Victorian Government is doing. It is not large scale reintroduction of cattle grazing. It is a trial in six areas to determine whether cattle grazing reduces fire risk. Obviously the methodology and evidence used by scientists running this trial will be subject to considerable scrutiny as it progresses, unlike the obviously highly flawed ones the previous Government wanted everyone to accept.
The greens groups and Labor Party who supported the Alpine grazing ban are terrified that their dishonesty will be exposed and are doing everything they can to stop this new trial. Hopefully the Federal ALP will not be able to enforce the cattle grazing ban they are posturing about and the trial will continue. Would be interesting if it came to them trying to arrange removing the cattle themselves. A can of worms! Of those with gear and expertise to do the job, who would touch it? Laws regarding impounding livestock would cause problems. Also is very unlikely any livestock transporter would cart these impounded cattle as afterwards many farmers would never give them another job.

Onviously a significant proportion of people taking an interest in the Alpine National Park cattle grazing issue are presently opposed to its large scale reintroduction. However, hopefully many should be open minded enough to accept a proper trial on how much it reduces fire risk and major environmental destruction of wildfires. Also, if the trial proves that undoubtedly any damage properly managed grazing causes is greatly outweighed by by overall benefit to the Park, they will accept it on a larger scale permanent basis. Undoubtedly there are some who will remain philosophically opposed to cattle in National Parks regardless of any proven benefits though.

The important question: Under consideration here is not immediate large scale grazing reintroduction. It is a trial. Do you support it?

[Chucaro]

Lateline report tonight - Cattle have been reintroduced to the Victorian high country on a six year trial basis. :thumbsup:
What a great move. :banana:

The Environment Minister, Tony Burke, has given the Victorian Government until Friday to get cattle out of the Alpine National Park. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/07/3184477.htm'section=justin) :banana::banana::twobeers::twobeers: :D

This is good, sorry to disagree with you Xtreme

[Redback]

Common sense prevails:D

[Xtreme]

The Environment Minister, Tony Burke, has given the Victorian Government until Friday to get cattle out of the Alpine National Park. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/07/3184477.htm'section=justin) :banana::banana::twobeers::twobeers: :D

This is good, sorry to disagree with you Xtreme

That's OK Chucaro - the cattlemen have been taking the cattle out of the Alpine regions during late autumn and before the onset of winter for over 170 years. As Redback says ...... "common sense" continuing to prevail.

By telling the cattlemen to do what they have been doing for years is simply an attempt at political point scoring by Tony Burke.

[amtravic1]

I guess the questions no-one has answered are:
If the cattle have been there for 170 years, why is the Alpine area not destroyed. The Area was in good enough condition to make a National Park. A so called pristine environment.
And, why are the species that are suddenly under threat from the reintroduction of cattle not extinct if the cattle destroy their habitats, seeing as the cattle have been there for at least 170 years.
If you are capable of thinking clearly enough you will see all the holes in the anti cattle arguments.

Ian

[HUE166]

I believe that the reintroduction of cattle to the national parks is the only commonsense solution to the problem the parks authorities face in relation to their management. Graziers have known these benefits for many years and, unfortunately, are rarely asked for their input into such issues. The greens on the otherhand, have little or no knowledge of the benefits or otherwise, have no commercial interest in the issue, have rarely visited these areas, and, I believe, have no right to intervene or have any say in the matter.;)

[HUE166]

This is a stupid decision that is more likely to increase the risk of fire than reduce it. The economic returns are far out weighed by the land management costs. Several species on the brink of extinction are likely to be seriously impacted. The damage from earlier grazing is still evident. This is ignorant vandalism, plain and simple. What a great move indeed!

KarlB
:mad:

Karl,

In the kindest way possible.....That is just so not the case.:)

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Am I missing something here? :confused:

I thought in scientific research you have a hypothesis you need to prove. Then you design your experiment to prove the hypothesis.

It's a very poor scientist who designs an experiment that doesn't prove his hypothesis.

So in the end your research comes out with the answer that you wanted in the first place. Once it's been published in a peer reviewed journal and cited by two other scientists in subsequent articles published in other peer reviewed journals, then it becomes a fact!

The most important thing you need to do is decide what you want to find before you start the research.

Isn't that the way it works?

BTW: I studied with many people doing ecology and zoology who were already members of the green movement and in spite of the education some of these people were receiving the outcome was already known and unchangeable.

Some of the most zealous amongst them were un-moved in their opinions by the starving millions throughout the world, but horrified by the thought of the damage a bushwalker may do to micro-environments in wilderness areas should the bushwalker thoughtlessly discard an apple core!

Some of these same people are now leaders of the animal welfare and green movements.

[Disco44]

Am I missing something here? :confused:

I thought in scientific research you have a hypothesis you need to prove. Then you design your experiment to prove the hypothesis.

It's a very poor scientist who designs an experiment that doesn't prove his hypothesis.

So in the end your research comes out with the answer that you wanted in the first place. Once it's been published in a peer reviewed journal and cited by two other scientists in subsequent articles published in other peer reviewed journals, then it becomes a fact!

The most important thing you need to do is decide what you want to find before you start the research.

Isn't that the way it works?

BTW: I studied with many people doing ecology and zoology who were already members of the green movement and in spite of the education some of these people were receiving the outcome was already known and unchangeable.

Some of the most zealous amongst them were un-moved in their opinions by the starving millions throughout the world, but horrified by the thought of the damage a bushwalker may do to micro-environments in wilderness areas should the bushwalker thoughtlessly discard an apple core!

Some of these same people are now leaders of the animal welfare and green movements.

Wow what an answer. That is one of the best I have ever read, and how true, congrats to you Diana ( I think that is your name)
John.

[KarlB]

Am I missing something here? :confused:

I thought in scientific research you have a hypothesis you need to prove. Then you design your experiment to prove the hypothesis.

It's a very poor scientist who designs an experiment that doesn't prove his hypothesis.

So in the end your research comes out with the answer that you wanted in the first place. Once it's been published in a peer reviewed journal and cited by two other scientists in subsequent articles published in other peer reviewed journals, then it becomes a fact!

The most important thing you need to do is decide what you want to find before you start the research.

Isn't that the way it works?

BTW: I studied with many people doing ecology and zoology who were already members of the green movement and in spite of the education some of these people were receiving the outcome was already known and unchangeable.

Some of the most zealous amongst them were un-moved in their opinions by the starving millions throughout the world, but horrified by the thought of the damage a bushwalker may do to micro-environments in wilderness areas should the bushwalker thoughtlessly discard an apple core!

Some of these same people are now leaders of the animal welfare and green movements.

What you are missing is an explanation of what is more properly understood as modern scientific method which centres on falsification of hypotheses rather than proof. This approach is generally attributed to Karl Popper though it really predated him by more than a hundred years. The approach demands falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that the scientific community can prove them false (usually by observation). According to this view, a hypothesis cannot be 'confirmed', because there is always the possibility that a future experiment will show that it is false. Hence, failing to falsify a hypothesis does not prove that hypothesis: it remains provisional. However, a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and not falsified can form a reasonable basis for action, ie, we can act as if it were true, until such time as it is falsified. Just because we've never observed rain falling upward, doesn't mean that we never will—however improbable.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[Chucaro]

At the end of the day the National Parks are belong to the people of this country and not to be used by private organizations or individuals for their own financial benefit.

These farmers which want to use the public assets for their own business have the same right that the rest of the population to use Commonwealth assets for their own financial gain. NIL

If they do not have enough land for their cattle they have the choice to purchase more land, have less cattle or give away the game.

I just wonder if I can have the workshops of any government division to run a business:angel:

[Tote]

Western Land leases which comprise of a large proportion of NSW are exactly the model you describe above.

Regards,
Tote

[Lotz-A-Landies]

At the end of the day the National Parks are belong to the people of this country and not to be used by private organizations or individuals for their own financial benefit.

These farmers which want to use the public assets for their own business have the same right that the rest of the population to use Commonwealth assets for their own financial gain. NIL
<snip>To extrapolate on your argument that the public has no right to attract financial gain from national parks, then it would be illegal for passenger cruise ships to navigate through the Whitsunday Islands, for many hotel complexes on tropical islands all within national marine parks. Charter fishing in similar marine parks, tag along and 4wd bus tours through any national park, the resorts at tropical and desert national parks. Ski venues in the alpine national parks. Professionally guided bushwalking tours, mountaineering or speleological tours, I can go on and on. Any one of those arguments makes a nonsense of your theory.

[mox]

Am I missing something here? :confused:

I thought in scientific research you have a hypothesis you need to prove. Then you design your experiment to prove the hypothesis.

It's a very poor scientist who designs an experiment that doesn't prove his hypothesis.

So in the end your research comes out with the answer that you wanted in the first place. Once it's been published in a peer reviewed journal and cited by two other scientists in subsequent articles published in other peer reviewed journals, then it becomes a fact!

The most important thing you need to do is decide what you want to find before you start the research.

Isn't that the way it works?

BTW: I studied with many people doing ecology and zoology who were already members of the green movement and in spite of the education some of these people were receiving the outcome was already known and unchangeable.

Some of the most zealous amongst them were un-moved in their opinions by the starving millions throughout the world, but horrified by the thought of the damage a bushwalker may do to micro-environments in wilderness areas should the bushwalker thoughtlessly discard an apple core!

Some of these same people are now leaders of the animal welfare and green movements.

Following on from the above comments it is well known that politicians will not call an enquiry unless that it will deliver their preferred outcomes. To conduct them, they can start by appointing people who are likely from their known political views and/or what they are being paid who will do this almost regardless of how strong overall evidence is against it. The effective process is sometimes to start assuming the conclusions they want and work backwards to try and justify them. Includes by selectively embracing or ignoring various bits of evidence.

Sometimes professional and trades people have to draw the line somewhere between doing what clients want and compromising their professional integrity. Sometimes unfortunately pressure on them includes considering future possible jobs from the same client. Also circumstances can vary. eg I have done some rough , cheap or quick mechanical repairs on vehicles and machines when it was important to keep them going in the short term. However in other circumstances have flatly refused requests to do similar things in non urgent situations because knowing they will not last and then probably I would be blamed.

Regarding the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council enquiry recommending large areas of river redgum forest being made National Parks which the Labor former Govt implemented despite very strong opposition from locals in areas involved: Of submissions received, the majority opposed them with many detailed good reasons. Obviously many of those in favour were from city people basically repeating spin peddled by green groups.

Note re cattle grazing, the present Govt has for some reason at least temporarily reneged on the promise to return it to the Barmah Forest. Grazing is more important here than in most other forests as redgums are very sensitive to fire and the necessary work involved to minimise this makes cool burns very costly and impracical for reducing fire risk.

[mox]

At the end of the day the National Parks are belong to the people of this country and not to be used by private organizations or individuals for their own financial benefit.

These farmers which want to use the public assets for their own business have the same right that the rest of the population to use Commonwealth assets for their own financial gain. NIL

If they do not have enough land for their cattle they have the choice to purchase more land, have less cattle or give away the game.

I just wonder if I can have the workshops of any government division to run a business:angel:

Various other businesses of other types also use public assets under arrangements with Governments. Those with philosophical objections to properly managed cattle grazing of public land regularly peddle lies that it is just for the benefit of a few greedy graziers who are getting cheap agistment.

The actual fees paid may be low compared with agistment on farms. However, there are many other expenses, especially transportation and mustering. Usually as part of the deal caretaker work including fixing fences and tracks and weed and vermin control is involved. Production from the forest is effectively ensuring funding for it continues. However care of many National Parks depends solely on what the Government decides to give. For recent Labor governments, trying to make themselves look good to some city voters by declaring more Parks rather than looking after existing ones seems the main priority.

Another consideration regarding grazing stock in areas where it is not easy to regularly inspect or muster them that there are usually more losses from deaths and sometimes disappearances than from farms. Remember that with cattle currently worth several dollars each this can be considerable.

Much of the grazing in Alpine and river redgum forests is over the summer when there is normally green feed there for much longer than on nearby dryland farms. Then over winter cattle are mainly taken from forests as they can be better cared for on the farms. Are operations that compliment each other. Suggesting that farmers simply buy more land just demonstrates ignorance of the overall situation.

However, the most important reason why properly controlled grazing is important in many forests is as one of the means to reduce fire risk and for this reason it is overall strongly supported by locals in areas concerned. What right should those objecting, mainly a few noisy city people and their politicians have to stop others from trying to protect themselves and the forests? Especially as most of them, including Federal Minister Tony Burke remain ignorant by actively trying to avoid consulting with people affected. Conversely however, undoubtedly they would be outraged if in the city the Government tried to impose stupid unwanted policies there to appease a vocal minority from outlying rural areas who rarely visited the city and showed considerable lack of understanding of issues involved. .

[cewilson]

Could everyone please read the ENTIRE thread from page 1 to current. In some posts we are revisiting areas of the discussion already covered, in particular the argument on reducing fire effect.


Thankyou
Chris