Farmers are being accused of shortsightedness for failing to prepare for the present drought. Yet few urban observers understand that the current crisis is caused by a level of hidden environmental taxes that the urban majority would never accept themselves.
The current drought provides an opportunity for farmers to rid themselves of a hidden environmental tax that is one of the greatest threats to their long-term viability, while at the same time correcting a major ecological imbalance.
On many properties, the excessive kangaroo population will eat as much feed as sheep or cattle. All agree that roo numbers have multiplied because of added watering points, improved pasture and clearing. But few non-farmers understand the full consequences of this.
It is worth noting that Burke and Wills, in their 1860-61 journey from Coopers Creek to the Gulf and back, shot their own camels and horses, scrounged for snakes, rats and birds but appear to have shot no kangaroos. During their final weeks, the local Murris provided them with fish (from the natural watering points) and nardoo cakes but, again, no roo meat.
One can only conclude that if starving men with rifles, camped at a watering point, were not shooting roos, then there were very few roos about.
Today, while farmers must hand-feed their stock to keep them alive, the same number of roos will starve. Many farmers will face the heart-rending task of shooting sheep rather than prolonging their agony.
And the roos? Farmers are allowed a limited licence to cull roos. The various environment ministers have assumed effective control over roo numbers but, negligently, have done nothing to ensure their health and wellbeing.
More importantly, as farmers have improved the productive capacity of their land, the relevant ministers have allowed their kangaroo herd to increase to unsustainable levels.
So where a paddock may have supported fewer than 1000 animals before European settlement, it may now support the equivalent of 6000, made up of 3000 sheep (or 300 cattle) and 3000 roos. The farmer has produced an unambiguous ecological profit, in boosting roo numbers by 2000, but the community, through the minister, has said, "thank you very much, they're all ours, and we'll decide what happens to them".
Out of a total increase in carrying capacity of 5000 animals, the farmer has had no choice but to pay an "environmental tax" of 40 per cent of his (gross) new fodder reserves to accommodate the extra 2000 roos.
If he had reduced his herd of sheep to build up fodder reserves for the inevitable drought, he would only have made room for more roos.
So, now, every sheep the farmer sells, hand-feeds or agists ensures the survival of another excess roo that will be ready to deprive him of any future profits in good seasons.
But what is the farmer's duty of care?
Australia's 100 million kangaroos are clearly not endangered, so a farmer's environmental duty of care should not extend any further than maintaining a proportion (10 per cent to 30 per cent) of the presettlement roo population levels.
This natural footprint or, "Undisturbed Ecological Value (UEV)" is the level that is produced without extra watering points, etc. It is the ecological equivalent of the Unimproved Capital Value that is the basis for land valuations and local government rate levies.
No one would seriously suggest that council rates could be fairly levied without a proper system of valuation, and environmental taxes, such as the kangaroo impost, are no different.
The case is overwhelming. The roo burden on farmers is one that the rest of the community is unwilling to bear. It is unjust, discriminatory and an inappropriate exercise of power.
So what can the farmer do? Shooting the suffering beasts without a licence would be the most humane thing to do, but it could also see you in court. No one doubts that millions of roos, sheep and cattle will suffer a slow cruel death in this drought. The only moral and ecologically sustainable option is to make their suffering as brief as lawfully possible.
The solution applies equally to domestic stock and community stock. If shooting is not an option for practical, legal or economic reasons, then, rather than watch animals suffer over six months, farmers should concentrate the animals they want to keep at a few watering points where they can be hand-fed to minimise energy loss from searching for food.
Remaining watering points should be shut to ensure the suffering of non-essential stock lasts for only a few days rather than a few months.
Once this adjustment has been made, the watering points can be reopened and essential stock can be redistributed to graze the remaining fodder at more sustainable levels.
This action would appear to be lawful, at least in Queensland. Queensland Parks and Wildlife has established a precedent by filling in dams on farm land that has been taken into the national parks estate. The intention is to return water flows and, hence, roo numbers, to presettlement levels.
Farmers have indulged the idle whims of the ill-informed for far too long.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment