Hi all,
Remember that the SA govt recently lifted the ban on shooting native
rosellas, parrots etc.? I got a reply to my email to the SA minister for
environment. It's full of political half-truths and "comfort-zone"
talk and the most striking argument I found was the following:
By removing the requirement for destruction permits in some areas, we become
more strategic in our approach to management for conservation, thus
strengthening our efforts to conserve all species
Peter Waanders
==================
Dear Mr Waanders
Thank you for your e-mail dated 21 July 1999 to
the Premier of South Australia, Hon John Olsen MP, regarding the removal of the
requirement for destruction permits for common native parrots causing damage to
commercial orchards in a number of districts. As this matter is the
responsibility of my portfolio as Minister for Environment and Heritage, the
Premier has asked that I respond on his behalf.
Removal of the requirement to have a destruction
permit is not an indiscriminate act. Exemptions from permit are specific to musk
lorikeets, rainbow lorikeets, Adelaide rosellas and yellow rosellas. These
species may only be taken within the local government areas of: Adelaide Hills,
Alexandrina, Barossa, Gawler, Kapunda and Light, Marion, Mitcham, Mount Barker,
Onkaparinga, Playford, Tea Tree Gully, Victor Harbor, Yankalilla, Berri and
Barmera, Loxton Waikerie, Mid Murray, Murray Bridge and Renmark Paringa. Birds
may only be shot under circumstances where they are causing damage to commercial
orchards and vineyards and the only persons authorised to do so are the
landowners and their employees or agents. In addition, the shooting of birds
must not contravene the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985 and the
Code of Practice for the Humane Destruction of Galahs and Little Corellas by
Shooting, the latter available from National Parks and Wildlife South
Australia and local council offices. A species identification pamphlet will be
available for orchardists to distinguish between exempt and non-exempt
species.
It is important to recognise that the species to
which the exemptions apply are very common and cause significant damage to
commercial orchards and vineyards in these areas. The taking of other protected
bird species or these birds outside of the above conditions without a
destruction permit is still illegal and people doing so will be subject to
prosecution.
An appropriate strategy to minimise the damage
caused to a fruit crop is to implement a scaring, "reinforced by
shooting" program before bird damage becomes widespread within the crop.
Removing the requirement for destruction permits will enable commercial
orchardists to act quickly and implement a damage control campaign. Depending on
economic feasibility, region and the species targeted, this approach must be
integrated with other techniques such as netting, visual scaring methods,
trapping by professionals, timing of maturing crops, orchard location and the
planting of decoy crops.
Since shooting is an adjunct to a scaring program
rather than simply a means of reducing bird numbers, it is anticipated that the
current initiative will not noticeably impact upon the populations of the
species exempted from destruction permits. Growers will only attempt shooting
during the time that buds are forming or fruit is maturing and the birds are
causing damage to crops.
The removal of the requirement for destruction
permits was carefully planned and considered with a view to improving the
State’s management for the conservation of native species by:
- preventing the concentration of birds on orchards by
enabling orchardists to implement scaring and shooting programs when birds
first arrive, thus maximising early deterrent capabilities while minimising
the number of bird deaths;
- enabling National Parks and Wildlife South Australia and
orchardists to establish a cooperative approach to pest native bird
management by having practical and integrated management systems that are
sensitive to more vulnerable species and that provide sustainable long-term
strategies; and
- removing an administrative requirement that was
time-consuming and costly while not serving a conservation outcome.
Controlling damage to crops by taking those
species to which this action applies is not new, destruction permits were
previously approved as a matter of course when damage was occurring. By removing
the requirement for destruction permits in some areas, we become more strategic
in our approach to management for conservation, thus strengthening our efforts
to conserve all species.
Thank you for your correspondence on this matter.
Yours sincerely
HON DOROTHY KOTZ MP
MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND
HERITAGE
