|
|
|
|
|
 The Government's decision to review alpine grazing by a Caucus Taskforce gives every member, every associate and every supporter an opportunity to drive home your opinions and thoughts about taking cattle to the high plains of Victoria. You have until June 18 to send a submission and a strong message to the Caucus Taskforce. Soon after the deadline for submissions the Caucus Taskforce will be meeting probably in Bright and Bairnsdale, where you will have the opportunity to present your views in person. You also have the opportunity, now, and especially after June 18 to lobby your local politicians and send a strong message to the Government. We must make an emphatic impact with this campaign. The future of the great tradition of taking cattle to the high plains depends critically on what we do now and over the next few weeks. The Association is preparing a submission and parts of the introductory section of it are contained in this Newsletter. We urge you to use this material in preparing your own submission and in your own representations to local politicians. We are actively developing campaign components and strategies and have weekly conference phone hook ups to keep activities on track. You have the opportunity to become part of the legend itself as we fight once again to maintain access to the high country leases and to continue the tradition of our forefathers and predecessors. We must not let down the great names of the past such as Jim Treasure, Don Kneebone, Jack Lovick and Jim Commins. As you write your submissions and letters, imagine that these giants of the legend are looking over your shoulder, guiding your hand and urging you not to let this marvellous heritage slip away into oblivion. These great men, mountain cattlemen, bush poets and keen conservationists have done their bit to create, nurture and build the legend. The reins have fallen to our hands. The horse stands ready. The saddle is empty. It is our turn, it is our responsibility, it is our heritage. Let no one take it away from you.  June newsletter pdf formatJune newsletter, text only in Word format The introductory section of the MCAV's submission The key issues This is the introductory section of the Mountain Cattlemens Association of Victoria's submission to the May/June 2004 Caucus taskforce investigation into cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park. The assertions in this section are substantiated in the MCAV's submission to the taskforce. Introduction The mountain cattlemen and families are pleased to have this opportunity to present some facts about alpine grazing. Members of the MCAV intend continuing to graze cattle on licensed areas in the Alpine National Park and feel honour bound to continue the great tradition of responsible cattle grazing started by their families and predecessors about 170 years ago. The MCAV, rural groups, and supporters are fired up on this issue which they see as a litmus test of the Government's concern and interest in rural Victoria. Any decision against the cattlemen, will be seen as the high water mark in recent decisions that have been adverse to rural interests. Importantly, this issue also has strong relevance to urban residents and voters who have shown strong empathy for the cattlemen and want to see this tradition continue. This review gives the cattlemen the opportunity to present a positive alpine cattle grazing management plan. This plan, which is included in the Association's submission, includes initiatives to ensure that the cattle are managed in the best interests of conservation issues and the broader community's interest of culture and heritage preservation. Alpine grazing is a core legislated promise and supporters will be extremely disappointed to see it raised again. The Environment Minister, the Hon. John Thwaites has said: "Alpine grazing is a licensed activity and will continue as a licensed activity." (Hansard, 6.11.2003 Page 1616) A decision against the mountain cattlemen will resound throughout rural Victoria and disturb many of the thousands of supporters. The process embarked upon by the Government is too quick to accurately gauge public opinion but in earlier campaigns on this issue the MCAV found a vast, strong but essentially silent majority of the community supporting the mountain cattlemen. These supporters - urban and rural - generally do not write letters or submissions but they do vote. Short answers This section lists the reasons why cattle grazing should continue in the Alpine National Park. As previously indicated the MCAV submission substantiates these points.
Each side to this debate can produce voluminous material to support its stance. The fact is however, that anyone who has some previous involvement in this issue will have already made up their mind. How is it that the two sides remain so steadfastly opposed in the face of reams of scientific reports, discussion papers and submissions? Simple. It is the weight that is given to each piece of the policy mosaic. The policy mosaic includes community attitudes, economic activity, environmental issues, scientific data, social outcomes, heritage and historic issues. On the environment issue alone the score might be MCAV: 2, VNPA: 1, but at full time, when we add in the community, economic, social, heritage and historic issues, the final score will be MCAV:7, VNPA:1. When the full mosaic of the policy is considered, the cattlemen come out way in front. The cultural links to the past that signpost the future It is becoming increasingly apparent that the community places high value on its cultural links to the past. If we don't have a connection to the past, we think the page we are on is the whole story and fail to comprehend that the current page is but one of many in the book - past and future. These links to the past are critical because they provide navigation points to the future. It is time to recognise the past, embrace its iconic images and give our community breadth of vision. When we find that one of the icons of past is still alive and flourishing, like the traditional practices of the mountain cattlemen, we should support them as we would a national treasure. The beneficial impact of cattle grazing on fire fuel The grazing of cattle substantially reduces the potential for wildfire, which apart from immediately devastating the area, can result in severe soil erosion and degraded water catchments. In 1979 the Land Conservation Council (LCC) acknowledged that, "In some areas, grazing can assist in management by reducing the build up of dry plant residues particularly when exotic pastures have been introduced, thus lessening fuel available for fires". In its 1988 Report, "Statewide Assessment of Public Land Use", the LCC acknowledged that, "Well managed forest grazing can also provide community benefits through weed control and fire-fuel reduction." Cattle grazing is also a more reliable and smoke free alternative to fuel-reduction burning for much of the mountain bushland. Who really is genuinely concerned about this issue? Searches of websites of ecological lobby groups like the Victorian National Parks Association, Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth and The Wilderness Society, show that it is only the VNPA that appears to be opposed to alpine grazing. It needs to be born in mind that when the VNPA asked its members to assemble in Birrarung Marr for a photograph, a paltry 200 turned up. Is this the extent of the opposition? Contrast this with the 3000 people who spent the weekend supporting the cattlemen at the annual Get-Together at Dargo on January, 2004, and every preceding year for 20 years. The issue of alpine grazing is generated by the VNPA The major environmental issues facing Victoria are salinity, pollution, greenhouse gasses, water, genetic modification of crops, and the brown issues of the city. Then there are the social issues like toxic dumps, wind power and whether grass will ever grow in Telstra Dome. In comparison, alpine grazing is infinitesimally small. The only reason alpine grazing is an issue is because the hierarchy of the VNPA has decided that it should be an issue. They could just as easily have chosen another issue totally unrelated to the Alpine National Park. It could have been the Barmah Forest, the Otways or grasslands, just as a couple of years ago, it was Box Ironbark Forests. Having chosen the issue the VNPA will and wind up its membership to sign protest cards. We should never lose sight of the real environmental issues and the votes available to whoever tackles them with sound and creative policies. The Government will not get any thanks or peace from the ecological lobby groups for removing cattle It is usually suggested that the Government is going to terminate some licences to "placate the greens", "strengthen its green credentials" or "appeal to the voters in Melbourne's eastern suburbs". However, past experience shows that governments do not get any thanks or peace as they give in to increasingly strident demands. The reality is that ecological lobby groups use any win as the starting point for their next campaign. Governments have never got much kudos for progressively removing commercial and recreational activities from public land or for proclaiming national parks that have resulted in the prohibition of activities. The ink is hardly dry on agreements before the ecological lobby groups are off on the next campaign. For the ecological lobby groups, a win today is the starting point for tomorrow's campaign. The incremental nature of ecological lobby groups' policies is highlighted in these statements from the VNPA's own publication, Parkwatch. These are further elaborated upon later in this submission. In June 1978, the VNPA stated, "The VNPA is not opposed to cattle grazing within the Alpine National Park save in a relatively few locations including wilderness zones." (VNPA, Parkwatch, June 1978) However, by the 1990s, the incremental nature of policy meant it was expedient to cast alpine grazing in a different light. In 1990, the VNPA stated - "Degrading activities such as grazing,... are totally incompatible with Park philosophy." (VNPA, Parkwatch, December 1990) What changed in the meantime? The cattle grazed the same areas. The same cattlemen families were involved. The only thing to change was the attitude of a small number of people at the helm of the VNPA. The other thing that has changed is that governments have progressively caved into increasingly strident demands of conservationists. This is the policy creep, death by a thousand cuts, or the salami theory - stick it in and cut off some more - call it what you will. It is a fact. It does exist. It will not stop until someone sees that public policy is best served by saying "No!" On the issue of terminating some alpine licences, this time the Government will get more kudos from saying "No, the cattlemen stay" than saying "Yes, we cave in yet again to the demands of the strident greenies." The MCAV considers that in light of the disappointment about the State Government in rural areas and the strength of support for the mountain cattlemen in the city, the Government has more to gain by supporting alpine grazing than terminating some licences. The decades of the VNPA's support for alpine grazing The VNPA strongly supported alpine grazing and the mountain cattlemen for decades. The extracts below, highlight this support. 1967 - Extract from V.N.P.A.-61, June 1967. Page 12 "The V.N.P.A plan (for an alpine park) envisages a degree of multiple use in which certain acceptable and specified activities such as forestry, apiculture and even cattle grazing will continue within an overall concept of conservation of the special natural resources for which the area is renowned -namely, water and scenery. Properly managed, there is good reason to believe that in an area of the size contemplated by the Association, these several forms of land use will be not only compatible but advantageous to the State and the nation." 1969 - Extract from V.N.P.A.- 74 November 1969. Page 5, "After consideration of all the factors involved your (VNPA) Council recognises that a Park of the area envisaged must, of necessity, be a multi-purpose park in which a variety of interests and activities would be recognised in much the same way as they are in multi-purpose parks elsewhere. Such activities would include logging, grazing and mining under controlled conditions. It is believed that the proposed reservation is large enough from a conservation point of view to support a range of such complimentary activities without detriment to the long-term preservation of the environment" 1969 - Extract from V.N.P.A.- 74 November 1969, page 7. "We are not opposed to continued logging within the area or to limited cattle grazing on the alpine pastures." 1972 - Extract from V.N.P.A.-87, April 1972 "Speakers from the National Parks Association made it clear from the outset that their proposal envisaged continuance of the existing leases. The Association could see no reason for apprehension among a group of people (the cattlemen) so deeply committed, in the way indicated by their (MCAV) President, to conserving the environment which they themselves believed to be essential to the welfare of their industry and their own livelihood." ..... A regular interchange of information would be of benefit to both organisations. Mr. Ros Garnet (of the VNPA) made the further suggestion that such an objective might be achieved in a manner more convenient to both Associations by the MDCA (now the MCAV) joining the VNPA as a Corporate Member. The cattleman could then, through their formally appointed delegate, play a significant role in shaping VNPA policy on the alpine areas." 1975 VNPA Newsletter March 1975, page 26, Comment by Dick Johnson. "It is now increasingly apparent that the viewpoints of cattlemen and conservationists are converging - differences are blurring and the major threats that we see also appear to be the same influences that most disturb the mountain folk. It is almost certain that within the next five years cattleman and conservationists will stand firmly together in fighting those influences, now only in their infancy that threatened to destroying everything which makes the Alpine area desirable to both of them." 1977 - Extract from "The Victorian Alps - A Resources Base?" By Dick Johnson The VNPA Journal No. 111, November 1977. Page 12 "The VNPA fully supports the present SCA policies and asks in addition only that wilderness areas be freed from grazing." These earlier views of the VNPA provide adequate reason for the continuation of alpine grazing. The ecological lobby groups are expecting politicians to break their promises As the ecological lobby groups decide to go for another notch on the rachet, they expect the politicians to break promise about alpine grazing, without a blink. These are the promises that the ecological lobby groups are expecting politicians to break. "The government has offered seven year licences to the mountain cattlemen. Security of tenure ... will be improved. The government does not intend to issue licences for seven years and then indicate that that is the end of them. ... licences are legally binding between the government and the cattlemen." (Mrs. Setches, Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, Assembly, 4.5.89) "Victorians should also know that the State Government recognises the traditions associated with the mountain cattlemen as part of our heritage and that these will be respected in the park" ... "The Government has decided to ... offer long term licences to all cattlemen in the high country, instead of the present one year licences" "Victoria Needs an Alpine National Park". September 1988, Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands brochure. "The government has said time and again, and I have explained it many times, that it will not be changing leases without consultation, without agreement and without the alpine cattlemen volunteering." Ms Sherryl Garbutt, Minister for Environment and Conservation, Hansard, 18.11.2001 "I said in this house a few weeks ago that there would be no changes to those licences and that we would not be taking them back or changing them without the agreement of the alpine cattle graziers." Ms Garbutt, Minister for Conservation and Environment, Hansard 30.10.2001, Page 1260 It is worth repeating the promise: "Alpine grazing is a licensed activity and will continue as a licensed activity." Mr Thwaites Minister for Environment, Hansard, 6.11.2003 Page 1616 Supporting the cattlemen would be a win-win-win-win-win decision In today's politics we hear all about "win-win decisions." A decision to support the cattlemen would, uniquely, be a win-win-win-win-win decision. The wins would be: The Government will win. The Association, its members and many supporters of the mountain cattlemen will applaud this decision. Many people will think more highly of the Government if, for just once, it stands up to the unacceptable demands of the now strident ecological lobby groups Rural people will win. The many rural groups will see this recognition that the Government is concerned about their issues. Melbourne communities will win. There will be satisfaction in simply knowing that a tradition and history still occurring in the State - the mountain cattlemen are still taking cattle up to the high plains. Just as conservationists have argued that you don't have to go to wilderness areas to derive some satisfaction from knowing they exist, so too do people like to know the mountain cattlmen's tradition continues. Whole country communities would win. The cattlemen have a critically important role in their local communities. They are part of the fabric of the local community and give substance to the romance of taking cattle onto high plains during summer. Economic activity, such as tourism, latched onto the cattlemen branding would win. Future generations will win. The link to the past will provide part of the signposts to the future. The cattlemen will win. What about the scientific "evidence"? The cattlemen have been aware of the narrowly focussed scientific evidence on cattle grazing for years. It would be hard to avoid! The point is however, that any human endeavour, leaves some impact. The scientific aspect of campaigns by ecological lobby groups has become tediously similar. The ecological lobby groups can get a set against any activity and find and encourage scientific evidence to show some impact. It does not matter whether the activity is alpine grazing, a new freeway, deepening shipping channels or siting a toxic dump. Scientists can always come up with the evidence. And rightly so, there will always be an impact. It does not take much to interpret impact as damage. Lo and behold, the campaign is off and running. A more interesting challenge would be to come up with an activity that shows as little impact after 170 years, as alpine grazing. The damage myth The high plains have been grazed, at various times by sheep, horses and cattle for 170 years. Only cattle are grazed now and at record low stocking rates. After all this grazing, the area has been regarded as being in sufficiently good condition to be proclaimed as a national park. The mossbeds upon which the ecological lobby groups have bestowed some mystical significance exist now, just as they have for centuries. The ecological lobby groups have tried to make the mossbeds the "old growth forests" of the high plains. The mossbeds are alive and well. Indeed the MCAV can show anyone healthy mossbeds on private land that have been grazed all year round for decades. The cattlemen know there are scientific issues and they do address them, but this is only part of the policy mosaic that needs to be considered. Again, we note that further substantiation of these points is in the body of the submission to the Taskforce. Cattle grazing is acceptable in the concept of national parks There are many national parks around the world, including Kakadu in the Northern Territory where cattle grazing has existed for decades. National parks in other countries include towns, villages, mines and quarries. Alpine grazing should not inhibit nominations for World Heritage listing. It is often suggested that alpine grazing needs to be removed from the Alpine National Park to allow the area to have World Heritage listing. This seems to be a nonsense. The Federal Department of Environment and Heritage, National Heritage Database shows that the Alpine National Park is listed as an Indicative Place on the Register of the National Estate. An Indicative Place is where a formal nomination has not been made and the Council has not received the data for assessment. In the nominator's "Statement of Significance", there is no mention of cattle grazing. Importantly, under the section "Condition and Integrity" it is simply noted that "Parks Victoria advised that approximately 48% of park burnt in fires of January 2003." There is no mention of cattle grazing. The Federal Department of Environment and Heritage website notes that Kakadu National Park was inscribed on the World Heritage List in three stages over eleven years. It is one of the few sites included on the List for both outstanding cultural and natural universal values. In its listing, it is noted that the Park is "directly associated with living traditions of outstanding universal significance." This could equally well apply to alpine grazing. We need also recall that there is a uranium mine and a vast tourism infrastructure in the Park. UNESCO's World Heritage website notes that its mission includes the following key points.
The importance given to encouraging the participation of the local populations in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage should be noted. Rather than cattle grazing inhibiting World Heritage listing, it would appear that the traditions of the mountain cattlemen and alpine grazing could support nomination. Don't let's kid ourselves about "compromises" The MCAV rejects the notion of "compromise". "Compromise" involves give and take. The previous "compromises" have been all take and no give. The "compromises" have always been one way as the opponents of alpine grazing seek one prohibition after another. If a "compromise" is announced in 2004, it is just the starting point for the opponents' next campaign that will start immediately. The following is the morbid list of earlier "compromises". 1923 Grazing terminated on Mt. Buffalo. 1940 Stricter controls on the number of cattle grazed. 1944 Grazing terminated above the timberline in the Snowy Mountains. 1956 Grazing terminated on Mts. Feathertop, Loch, and the summit of Mt. Bogong. 1957 Grazing terminated on the remainder of Snowy Mountains 1960 Premier's directive gave control of the number of cattle to be taken above the snowline to the then Soil Conservation Authority. Numbers that could be grazed were gradually reduced. Grazing terminated on Mt. Buller. 1964 Three families evicted from Mt Bogong. 1979 Land Conservation Council recommends that grazing be withdrawn from: parts of Wonnangatta-Moroka National Park, parts of Bogong National Park, Snowy River National Park, Wabonga Plateau State Park, Avon Wilderness, the Bluff-Mount Clear Natural Features and Scenic Reserve. 1980 Government endorses the LCC recommendations and decides to terminate licences after phase-out period. 1982 Grazing terminated in Avon Wilderness 1983 Government directs LCC to recommend extensions to National Parks. This results in more licence terminations. 1984 Grazing terminated on Mt. Howitt and Mt. Magdala. 1988 Government purchases Wonnangatta Station and closes leases. Snowy River National Park - one licence terminated 1988 Wabonga Plateau - one licence terminated 1988 1991 Significant parts of the Bogong National Park. There are 21separate licences on the Bogong High Plains. Northern end runholders have been relocated to the southern end. The Bluff-Mount Clear National Features Scenic Reserve - one licence partly terminated. Howitt Plains - one licence terminated. Mt. Stirling - one licence terminated. This means there is only a token but representative area left for grazing within the Alpine National Park. The cattlemen have had enough of one-way compromises. This issue now is not about some small additional cut to the numbers of cattle on the high plains. The issue now is the final decision. The MCAV knows that the community want the tradition of taking cattle to the high plains to continue and the current families feel honour bound to continue this custom which is highly valued by many people. Public opinion supports the cattlemen The Terms of Reference, asks for "any further available evidence that will be useful to the Minister". Under this section, the MCAV highlights the strength of community support for the cattlemen and alpine grazing. This is illustrated by scientific research, the government's own surveys, a Herald-Sun Voteline and other expressions of community support. These are elaborated on in the submission. The community has made it abundantly clear what it wants, what it supports and what will attract voter support. The community unequivocally supports the continuation of alpine grazing. The Government has no mandate to abandon alpine grazing In the lead up to the 1996 State Election, the ALP had a policy which stated, "Labor will improve and extend the Alpine National Park by ... Enforcing environmental conditions on grazing licences, and examining ways to remove all grazing from the Park." However, for the 2002 policy the ALP policy on alpine grazing was silent. Therefore it must be that, for the 2002 election, the now Government supported the status quo as outlined in the National Parks Act. The Government has no mandate to abandon the mountain cattlemen. The management plan This submission contains a management plan that was initially partly developed with Parks Victoria. The management plan acknowledges the scientific framework surrounding alpine grazing, utilises the cattleman's knowledge of animal husbandry, accepts the need to protect the conservation values of the area and presents the cattlemen's activities in a positive manner that adds to the so-called triple bottom line of the government. The implementation of this plan is the only sensible option for the future. |
|
|
|
|
||||||