I
seek a response from you please in relation to the proposed kangaroo cull
at Belconnen in advance of the killing of any kangaroo please, noting
your publicly declared support for the cull option (e.g. at http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/opinion/letters-to-editor/letters-to-the-editor/1198651.html,
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2007/08/03/1996036.htm and http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/12/2186998.htm?site=local):.
Specifically, I seek your advice and action in relation to statements
in the expert group report that has been relied upon (and Dr Cooper's
and Chief Minister Stanhope's offices do confirm that this expert group
report has indeed been relied upon by Dr Cooper and Mr Stanhope) in support
of the proposed Belconnen kangaroo cull. And in a very real sense I believe
I'm helping your side of this debate David in terms of demonstrating what
your side of the debate would need to provide by way of clarification
and confirmation before any kangaroo killing at Belconnen could be considered
a legitimate government action (i.e. clarifications and confirmations
that would clearly seem to be essentially necessary from all legitimate
stakeholder perspectives, even if less than sufficient grounds to justify
the killing of a kangaroo in the view of many, including myself).
I believe the following extract in the expert group report contains a
serious contradiction that must be resolved before the killing of any
kangaroo could be considered a legitimate government action - given that
ACT Chief Minister Stanhope and Commonwealth Environment Minister Peter
Garrett have both stated publicly in recent times their direct or indirect
reliance upon this expert group report:
The only identifiable nonlethal method of removing the kangaroos from
BNTS is to physically move the kangaroos to another site. For the 60 kangaroos
subject to research at BNTS this may be appropriate, provided that another
site suitable for holding captive kangaroos for research purposes can
be located. However, for the other kangaroos currently captive at the
BNTS site, we do not consider dart-capture followed by release into the
wild to be a humane option for the reasons set out below. Firstly, it
is against current ACT Government policy. This policy has been in place
for some time and is backed by sensible and robust investigation and research.
It is obviously inconsistent and contradictory to say in adjacent sentences
that on the one hand it "may be appropriate" to relocate "the
60 kangaroos subject to research" and, on the other, "we do
not consider dart-capture followed by release into the wild to be a humane
option". The "reasons set out below" in the expert group
report are such that if they apply to the kangaroos not subject to research
then they'd also apply equally to those that are the subject of research!
If it's not government policy to move animals subject to research then
this should be made explicit in the report, or at least explained in a
footnote. Or if the position is that the kangaroos subject to research
have already been inconvenienced, such that more of the same as would
occur with translocation is considered acceptable for them, then again
such views should be made explicit, even if they raise further contradictions
that would require further resolution. Experts are called upon in cases
like this to help clarify the public understanding of complex matters,
not to raise more and more questions on issues that are far from clear
cut, though partly matters of ethics as well as scientific or technical
expertise and plain common sense.
I believe you David and all others who have publicly pushed for the Belconnen
kangaroo cull have a basic ethical and expert duty to ensure that (1)
contradictions like that in the expert group report as above here are
fully and transparently resolved well before any kangaroo is killed and
(2) such resolutions are publicly promulgated well before any kangaroo
is killed, including on all relevant ACT and Commonwealth government websites
(certainly at least the ACT Environment Commission and Deference Department
websites).
In my opinion no Belconnen kangaroo needs to be killed and none, therefore,
should be killed. But even putting that opinion totally to one side, it
is surely clear to all people that no Belconnen kangaroo should be killed
until the contradictions and doubts raised in this expert group report
- in relation to the costs, benefits and viability of the culling and
translocation options for the Belconnen kangaroos - are transparently
clarified, including on all relevant ACT and Commonwealth government websites.
Please attend to the concerns raised here so as to ensure that such concerns
are properly resolved and publicly clarified well before any kangaroo
is killed. And please feel free to draw my attention to any logical or
other flaws in my reasoning here if you believe I am mistaken in any way
(cc addressees also feel free to do the same), and to generally advise
me if you believe I have overlooked any critical issues here.
Regards,
Mark Drummond
BSc(hons*) DipEd BA BE(hons*) MBA MPubPolMgmt PhD [* = university medal,
both UNSW]
5 Loddon Street
KALEEN ACT 2617
phone 02 6255 0772
email: markld@ozemail.com.au
|