Dear Friends
The following information was obtained from Sharon Blair of the Bird
Care and Conservation Group, South Australia.
It is reproduced, with her permission, in the hope that you miay find it
useful in preparing your own letters of protest to send to the relevant
authorities.
Regards
Anne Green, Morgan, SA 5320
--
Atriplex Services: "Working With Nature" Environmental Consultants,
Growers of native Australian plants, educators.
http://www.riverland.net.au/~atriplex
Mailto:
Visit our Native Plant Nursery at "Fiddlers' Green"
Blanchetown Road, Morgan, South Australia.
--- Begin Message ---
|
To: |
"The Editor Wild Life Welfare" <> |
|
Subject: |
Fw: Section 51a, Destruction of protected native parrots |
|
From: |
"Sharon Blair" <> |
|
Date: |
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:21:53 +1030 |
I hope I haven't sent you too much?
Thank you for your support
Sharon Blair
This covering letter together with a copy of the letter that was published
in the Adelaide newspapers January, 2001 has been sent to the international
media, the World Wildlife Fund and the International Fund for Animal Welfare
in the hope that they will assist us.
Sir/Madame,
The South Australian Government has enacted legislation that allows
commercial horticulture and their agents to shoot unlimited numbers of our
states most beautiful parrots without monitoring or control.
The beautiful Adelaide and Yellow Rosellas, and the Rainbow and Musk
Lorikeet are being destroyed as a means of crop protection. South
Australians are proud of our State's wine, but distressed that so many
parrots are being destroyed to produce it. Please see below a letter that
has been published in The Adelaide Advertiser and The Adelaide Messenger.
Many international tourists visit our state and Wildlife Parks in the
Adelaide Hills.
At certain advertised times these lovely birds fly into the parks to be fed.
If they then cross the road to the orchard they are shot.
Please help us if you are able. We think that only international pressure
could convince our Government to persuade agriculture to explore more humane
methods of crop protection.
Sharon Blair
President
Bird Care and Conservation Society of SA Inc.
Website:http://www.welcome.to/birdcare
Sir,
Once again this Government has bowed to the financial interest of a minority
group and proclaimed that orchardists can shoot or employ contractors to
shoot unlimited numbers of otherwise protected Australian native parrots
without monitoring or control. Even duck hunters and fisherman are limited
to the size and number of their kill.
During the first twelve month period this was in place (1999-2000) the
Department of Environment did a survey of 231 orchardists. It was
determined they had killed 45,000 Rainbow Lorikeets, Musk Lorikeets and
Adelaide Rosellas. It was also agreed that this was a very conservative
estimate.
There is no incentive for orchardists to explore better and more humane
methods of crop protection because whilst shooting is allowed, it will
always be the easiest option.
This killing is conducted during the breeding season when, as a result young
unweaned birds are abandoned in nest hollows to slowly die. Apart from
humane considerations, this does not allow populations to recover- this may
be the intention, however.
The killing is conducted on private property with no television cameras to
bring this to the attention of the public. Perhaps that is why there has
been very little public concern expressed?
Imagine what would happen if 45,000 cats or dogs were slaughtered in the
Adelaide Hills during their breeding season leaving unweaned puppies and
kittens abandoned in nest hollows to die a slow death.
Surely there would be public outrage?
Perhaps we need visitors from other countries to express their outrage and
defend our wildlife as happened when a cull of the Koalas on Kangaroo Island
was considered.
Or should our parrots swap their feathers for fins to ensure their survival?
S. K. Blair
President
Bird Care and Conservation Society of SA Inc
(08) 8264 6696
The submission below was sent to all non-liberal member of th e Legislative
council. All voted against the bill except for Terry Cameron. We lost by
one vote.
Re: Section 51a National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972
During the last fifteen or so years, there has been much planting of
non-indigenous native flowering gums together with more and more removal of
native vegetation for the increased planting of vineyards and olive
plantations.
The population of lorikeets now seems to have become sedentary. Lorikeets
used to follow the sequential flowering of native vegetation and act as the
main pollinators of the target species of feeding trees in the Adelaide
Plains, Barossa Valley, Murray Mallee, upper S.E. and the Southern Mount
Lofty Ranges including Kangaroo Island.
Trees are no longer being pollinated by the lorikeets in most of those
areas; in fact land care groups say they can no longer obtain viable seed
from some native species because of this.
We are not aware of any research being done in this area and that is of
significant concern to us.
With the unlimited destruction of a now sedentary population of lorikeets by
commercial horticulture, and with most destroyed at the height of their
breeding season we are concerned that populations may not recover. However
that might be the intention.
Another major concern is that the Adelaide Rosella has one of the most
limited ranges of all of Australian native parrots.
At a February meeting of DEH/Wildlife and Animal Welfare groups when a
senior member of DEH was queried about the numbers of Adelaide Rosellas
remaining in the wild the reply was "nobody knows".
In correspondence however they assert that research supports their position
on the use of Section 51a and that "Whilst of limited distribution, the
Adelaide Rosella is very abundant within that range".
We know this research and it is now outdated. In recent correspondence from
Iain Evans he asserts that at the time these birds are being destroyed " a
significant proportion of the population comprises birds in their first
year; these are the individuals most likely to die from natural causes."
This is conjecture. If it were true, then there is even more to be
concerned about as it means we have an ageing population.
Juvenile Rainbows can only be identified by their lack of eye-ring and the
colour of their beaks, we doubt that farmers, inexperienced observers or
indeed many people at all would know this or could see this from a distance.
Lorikeet breeding season may start in late winter and extend through spring
and into summer. This is the time when the shooting occurs.
Destruction of Adelaide Rosellas by cherry orchardists also occurs during
their breeding season, which is in December and January. The rosella popula
tion will not recover between seasons. Ten years ago Adelaide Rosellas were
a problem in cherry orchards. Cherry varieties grown have changed since
then and the Adelaide Rosellas are no longer a problem. You can confirm
this with Bill Bishop, Cherry Grower, Basket Range.
We understand that the DEH have conducted a survey of farmers (231) and have
estimated that they have destroyed 40,000 lorikeets and 5,000 rosellas since
the enactment of Section 51a of the National Parks Wildlife Act of 1972 in
May 1999.
If this is so then it is a very conservative estimate. Ron Sinclair, senior
research officer with the Animal and Plant Control Commission, said the
number of rosellas killed was a "gross underestimate".
At a recent BCCS/Apple and Pear Growers meeting it became clear that
orchardists had not sought the enactment of Section 51a. In fact they say
they had not even discussed its use, although they are not now opposing it.
It was also clear that they share our concerns at the inclusion of the
Adelaide Rosella and said they would not have suggested their inclusion had
they been consulted.
The Bird Care and Conservation Society of SA Inc would like to see the
Destruct Permit reinstated. With numbers on the permit clearly stated it
would be an offence to exceed this and we hope that it would be policed by
the DEH.
Charging royalties on those birds destroyed or making a charge on the permit
could finance the policing of the destruct permits and encourage commercial
horticulture to use more ecologically desirable crop protection thereby
promoting a responsible and "Clean Green Image".
To provide a permanent for home for unreleasable rosellas that have been
orphaned or injured as a result of the use of section 51a a Rescue Permit
together with the purchase of a Keep and Sell Permit is required.
The current cost of this basic Keep and Sell Permit is $40 and must be
renewed annually and remain current for the life of the birds. The life span
of rosellas in captivity is up to twenty or more years. The cost of our
compassion for the orphaned and injured could be in excess of $800.00 for
the life span of two birds.
Commercial horticulture can destroy these same birds by the thousands for
the cost of their ammunition.
Bird Care and Conservation Society of SA Inc
Tuesday, 13 June 2000
--- End Message ---
|
