Thread: Cattle back in the VicHigh Country

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.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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

We had beautifully marinated venison medallions last night for dinner

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.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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 The Cowpad 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.

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