Download Denis Starrs (Word - 16 KB) - Department of the Environment

The extinction of the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago allowed the evolution of the
Mammals in the continent that is now known as Australia.
For most of those 65 million years, the population and species were developed in
accordance with the Darwinian principles of Natural Selection of the Fittest.
Approximately 45,000 years ago the human species reached this continent.
The archaeological record suggests that about this time great changes took place in
the number of animal species on the continent.
The large browsing fauna disappear from the record and the flora on which they had
fed was replaced by other more fire-tolerant species.
Opinion is divided on whether the arrival of humans caused the change in the flora
and fauna or whether the changes were due to a shift in climatic conditions.
Some 4,000 years ago the common Asian dog arrived in Australia.
There is much disagreement over the circumstances of its arrival.
Some maintain that a single pregnant bitch arrived, probably by means of an Asian
fishing boat.
Others argue that the dog arrived with a wave of human settlement which brought
new methods of hunting and food gathering resulting is a great surge in human
population numbers.
As recently as 1943, biologists were considering the possibility that the Dingo had
arrived in the 17th century via shipwrecked Dutch vessels on the West Australian
coast. (see An Australian Animal Book, Charles Barrett, Oxford University Press
Melbourne, page 102)
Certainly the arrival of the first placental mammal, other than man, ended 65 million
years of contained evolutionary selection in Australia.
Shortly after the arrival of the dingo the Thylacine and the Tasmanian Devil
disappear from the mainland. The dingo did not reach Tasmania and these two
species continued to survive there for some thousands of years.
Exactly how the dingo replaced the existing predators four thousand years ago is
uncertain.
Some are of the opinion that the dingo being a more modern and more highly
evolved species was able to out compete the thylacine and the devil in the quest for
prey animals. This idea is attractive but leaves much open to doubt. It presents the
same kind of problem as “would the last fox kill the last rabbit”.
We are of the opinion that the dingo, which has been observed to engage in
cannibalism, had no hesitation in killing and eating the thylacine and devil.
Because the dingo was seemingly able to exterminate the then existing carnivores, its
destruction of the traditional prey of those carnivores must have been substantial.
It seems that Australia is in the process of flora and fauna change as great and
possibly greater than happened with the arrival of the dingo.
Population growth with all its associated industry, now accompanied by climate
change and the introduction of the fox and cat within the past few hundred years is
having a profound effect upon the native fauna.
As a means of mitigating these effects it has been proposed that the development of
Wildlife Corridors of Animal Protecting Landscapes would enable populations of
susceptible animals to cope with climate change by migrating to areas that will still
provide the climatic conditions that they require.
Definitely some species would benefit from these corridors but most of the species
that are mobile enough to take advantage of the cover provided are already prone to
relocate to cope with changing short term weather conditions.
Others are far more devoted to a home range and their populations move only by
means of a population increase colonising adjoining territory. A process far too slow
to offer a protection against climate change.
One species that would benefit from the proposed corridors would be the dingo.
Already dingoes have been shown to cover hundreds of kilometres of country as part
of a territory and the provision of safe passage along a wildlife corridor would extend
these hunting territories.
If we are relying on these corridors to enable smaller native species to adapt to
climate change then we need to consider the effect of dingoes on any species that
might be capable of using the corridors but is not capable of migrating through the
existing landscape.
For your consideration I have attached a recently published paper by Allen and
Fleming of the University of Queensland and the New South Wales Department of
Primary Industries respectively.
While much of their study is on the effect of dingo predation in comparison to the
effect of fox and cat predation, they do make it clear that the presence of dingoes in
an environment would have a profound effect on the likelihood of any species
successfully using a Wild Life Corridor as a means of extending its range into a
suitable climatic zone.
Looking at the corridor proposal from an economic perspective, the dingo again
becomes a problem.
If the wildlife corridors are established and all animals including dingoes are given
free access along the length of the corridors then it is inevitable that the dingoes will
stray from the confines of the corridors and prey upon domestic livestock.
This is already a problem with the boundaries of National Parks and here in New
South Wales, the Livestock Health and Pest Authority spends considerable sums of
money each year in an effort to protect livestock from attack by dingoes.
This is something that is not addressed in the Draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan
but the presence of dingoes along the corridors will lead to the failure of the concept
both on environmental grounds and on economic grounds.
There is also a political aspect to the concept.
For many years we in the Southern Tablelands of NSW have been aware of the
activities of the Kosciusko to the Coast organisation.
This is a rather shadowy organisation; a visit to their website leaves one none the
wiser about their goals and activities. Yes, they offer details of working bees to enable
city people to have a Day in the Country but the K2C organisation is about more than
that.
It is believed that their organiser, Lauren Van Dyke is employed by the NSW state
government and that the organisation has a large working fund also provided by the
state government.
This fund is used to buy properties which are then subdivided and the portions sold
with a covenant upon them, making them part of the Kosciusko to the Coast Corridor.
Some years ago the K2C organisation was quite open about its intention to see
dingoes as users of the wildlife corridor but since being challenged by the then
Cooma Rural Land Protection Board there has been no mention of dingoes on their
website.
The policy of having sections of a wildlife corridor owned by animal-loving city
people is an idea fraught with problems.
Many years of farming have allowed me to watch the progress of people who seek to
buy “a little piece of bush”.
Initially enthusiasm brings them out from town each weekend but then over a few
short years the maintenance becomes a chore until eventually nothing is done about
the place and weeds and foxes and cats proliferate.
Within a few years the place is sold but it is now a problem block that no part-time
manager can cope with. We have heard that the Cooma Monaro Shire Weeds
Inspectors are now working in accordance with a policy that does not require these
part-time managers to control weeds.
This policy is earning resentment from primary producers who are landed with the
problem of coping with the outflow of pest animals and weed seeds from these
neglected animal refuge blocks.
Already there is considerable resentment towards governments, state and
commonwealth, over the imposition of carbon sequestration obligations without
compensation.
There are suspicions now among farmers that the state government is using the
power of planning decisions and building regulations to drive down the value of
properties within the line of the proposed K2C corridor to enable their purchase or
acquisition at a much lower price at some future date.
If the concept of wildlife corridors is to have any chance of succeeding then the
support and co-operation of farmers is essential.
As climate change develops and as we become a more carbon-aware society the
present situation of people being able to live in remote rural locations and commute
to the cities for work will end and only farmers will live in the countryside.
We would propose that the concept of wildlife corridors could only work with the
ongoing expenditure of large sums of money to control weeds and feral animals
including dingoes along the entire length of the corridors.
A much more effective system for coping with climate change would entail the
establishment of predator and pest free areas and the introduction and reintroduction
of threatened native species into those areas.
SUBMISSION from Denis Starrs