Management plan equals wipeout

Management plan equals wipeout

Sir, – I read with cynicism and scepticism, the words of the NPWS in the article in the Tumut and Adelong Times of May 3 with respect to the ongoing implementation of the National Parks and Wildlife Service Horse Management Plan, being the re-homing and trapping/slaughter of the iconic snowy brumby.

The NPWS comments should be interpreted by non-greens as a political statement to disguise the real intent of the Green-Labor management policies that still permeate the NPWS, with O’Farrell’s conservative government unable or unwilling to cleanse NPWS of the rabid Green-Labor policies they inherited at the last State elections.

The real intent of the Horse Management Plan is consistent with the perverse logic of the Colong Foundation and the Wilderness Society, architects along with Bob Carr of the NPWS Wilderness and Park management plans- the total extermination of the snowy brumby from Kosciuszko National Park.

Area Manager Cathcart makes a number of statements, and I invite him to respond to the following points of interest.

• What are the Codes of Practice and legislation that NPWS adhere to?

• Have NPWS staff and contractors been formally trained and inducted as competent in the application of these Codes of Practice and horse-husbandry techniques?

• What exactly do RSPCA reviews consist of?

• Is any physical, on-site monitoring of these practices and techniques at horse-trapping, loading and unloading facilities carried out at NPWS and contractor facilities?

• Is the physical condition of all horses handled and apparent traumas recorded, a cause applied to them and are these records(if any) available for public scrutiny.

• How many and why, horses are euthenased at loading and unloading and holding facilities. Are these figures recorded and are they available for public scrutiny?

At this point readers may recall how the now-politicised RSPCA failed to bring to account any individual or institution following Labor’s helicopter gunship slaughter of brumbies in Guy Falkes NP.

• Is the physical condition of horses held by NPWS or their contractors recorded prior to transport to South Australia for slaughter? Is the physical condition and traumas suffered in transit recorded and are these records(if any) available for public scrutiny?

At this point readers should bear in mind how activist groups from out of the same philosophic tent as NPWS management such as Animals Australia readily close down live cattle export industries because of purported inhumane and brutal animal treatment but have a clear conscience when it comes to the carnage and slaughter perpetrated on the snowy brumby.

• At what point in the Horse management plan does the NPWS cease to bear a legal vicarious liability for the well-being of the snowy brumby.

Mr Cathcart claims ongoing discussion over the fate of the snowy brumby with a number of interest groups, more likely a relationship based on ego-stroking and appeasement (the chamberlain-esque “there will be brumbies in our time” syndrome.

Mr Cathcart fails to fully disclose all details of the population count that the Management plan is predicated on, rather he runs the time worn green mantra of damage and increasing populations.

Extrapolation of NPWS figures of a 20% growth rate show a current population of 25,789 less the 2000 approximately, removed for rehoming and slaughter.

Readers with an interest in the continued existence and well-being of the snowy brumby should be aware that NPWS are unchallenged so far in the implementation of their master-plan, the extermination of the snowy brumby and that political intervention can only come about by public action on this issue to say.

Yours etc,

Alan Lanyon