Cattle back in the VicHigh Country

So you know for a fact that none of the following is really a problem?
Cattle Grazing in the Alpine National Park
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
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PAT303

Well what species are threatened by the cattle?

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mox

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mox

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeeJay

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.