Right: How The Age's Pat Campbell saw the brumby controversy
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Further implications
Years of mismanagement of feral horse populations in Australian alpine regions have created a situation that is difficult to resolve. Wild horse control programs appear to have been typified by periods of relative inaction followed by sporadic crisis control measures, such as aerial culling, which then provoke vigorous opposition and a further period of inaction.
The situation has been complicated by the impact on vulnerable environments of climate change, including catastrophic events such as bushfires; the depredation of other pest animals; and increasing human infringement on alpine areas via tourism and other proposed developments such as Snowy 2 - the extension of the Snowy Hydro Scheme.
Currently, no matter whose figures are used, feral horse numbers are increasing in most of Australia's alpine regions. Though the most cited figure of 14,000 is disputed by some, there is a general acknowledgement that populations are growing at an unsustainable rate which is likely to negatively affect already fragile ecosystems as well as threaten the horses with periodic starvation.
There is currently no consensus on how to manage this problem. There are some scientists and conservation bodies that maintain there should be no wild horses in Australia's alpine national parks. Most brumby support groups adopt a more moderate position, acknowledging that wild horse numbers need to be reduced in alpine regions. There would appear to be room for compromise, with a position broadly like that being proposed in New South Wales where numbers are to be substantially reduced but wild horses are to remain in most areas.
The major points of disagreement appear to be how many horses should remain and, if they are to remain, in what areas they will be allowed. Related points of disagreement centre around how they will be removed, or have their numbers reduced.
Neither those seeking the horses' removal nor those who want them retained trust the figures given by the opposing side on the size of current populations or on what number of wild horses' different alpine regions can sustain without damage.
Brumby supporters regularly call for new and 'objective' surveys of brumby numbers, while those seeking culling, or removal argue that delays in reducing numbers only mean that more wild horses will ultimately have to be killed. Methods of reducing wild horse populations are equally contested. Aerial culling has been outlawed in New South Wales since the Guy Fawkes National Park cull in 2000 which was a public relations disaster for the New South Wales National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) The NPWS had to defend itself against 12 charges of animal cruelty levelled by the state's RSPCA.
New South Wales does still allow ground shooting when the situation requires it. In Victoria, aerial culling is now permitted in circumstances where it is deemed necessary. In May 2020, Victoria reintroduced ground shooting of wild horses, arguing that in some situations it was less stressful on the animals than rounding them up and later euthanising. Brumby support groups remain in total opposition to aerial culling, and most are opposed to ground culling. In addition to the cruelty involved in the culling process, opponents point to the inconsistency from an environmental perspective of leaving large numbers of horse carcasses to pollute waterways and feed wild dogs. Brumby supporters argue for non-violent, non-lethal measures to reduce horse numbers.
The Australian Brumby Association (ABA) claims, 'The most effective, humane, sensible way to manage Brumby numbers that keep both the environment and its Brumbies healthy is to have an ongoing management program. First, we need to identify viable, sustainable population numbers that will not overtax their landscape. Working to an identified, viable population level will then set the number to be removed on a regular basis to sustain that population level. Rehoming groups can then plan for how they may be able to take on rehoming work and increase the chance that more Brumbies can be rehomed under the parks management plan, rather than the current more ad hoc approach.'
Critics of such an approach argue that rehoming programs have failed to accommodate the number of horses that would need to be removed on a regular basis. Recommended best practice for managing pest species endorses the sort of gradualist approach sought by the ABA but acknowledges that animals may have to be put down and larger numbers than some brumby support groups would prefer may have to be removed.
PestSmart is a citizen advice agency managed through the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions (CISS) and funded by the Australian Government. It recommends as best practice a management regime which causes the least disruption possible to the restricted species and gradually removes it from the affected area or reduces its numbers. Its website states, 'There is an expectation that animal suffering associated with pest management be minimised. The most humane methods that will achieve the control program's aims must be used. Consideration of animal suffering should occur regardless of the status given to a particular pest species or the extent of the damage or impact created by that pest. While the ecological and economic rationales for the control of pests such as the feral horse are frequently documented, little attention has been paid to the development of an ethical justification as to how these pests are controlled. An ethical approach to pest control requires recognition of and attention to the welfare of all animals affected directly or indirectly by control programs.'
PestSmart further states, 'From an animal welfare perspective, it is highly desirable that pest control programs affect a minimum number of individuals, and that effort is sustained so that pest densities always remain at a low level. Over the last decade, the approach to managing pest animals has changed. Rather than focusing on killing as many pests as possible, it is now realised that like most other aspects of agriculture or nature conservation, pest management needs to be carefully planned and coordinated.'
If the above principles can be applied it may be possible to achieve a solution which while giving neither side in this debate exactly what they are currently demanding, allows wild horse numbers to be humanely reduced over time. This would require a degree of compromise from the different stakeholders in this issue and a substantial financial investment by government in regular horse population monitoring, research into effective fertility control measures, regular removal from herds of re-homable horses and the training and supervised deployment of shooters to perform small-scale and, if necessary, regular culls.