report from
the roundtable – 28 may
I was
bitterly disappointed to not receive majority support for a local law to
prevent the backyard feeding of sulphur crested cockatoos in some parts of Yarra
Ranges. I moved a motion, which was in turn seconded by Cr Cliff, but all other
councillors did not support the local law.
Councillors
in favour - council meeting 28 May:
Crs Dunn
and Cliff
Councillors
Against
Crs
McAllister, Witlox, Callanan, Child and Cox
Councillors
Absent
Crs Avery
and McCarthy
It was at
complete odds to voting patterns to support the local law in the past. At the
council meeting of 26 Feb, 2013 the majority of councillors supported the public
exhibition of the local law, given the
political will clearly wasn’t there, I wonder why they would seek to go through
the motions, wasting valuable officer and community time in a public exhibition
process and setting up false expectations for the community.
Councillors in favour of exhibiting the local law 26 Feb:
Crs Dunn, Cliff, Cox, McAllister, Callanan, McCarthy
and Child
Councillors against:
Cr Witlox
Councillors absent:
Cr Terry Avery
Further to
that councillors discussed the direction to proceed with the local law at an assembly (private
meeting) of councillors on 5th February 2013 where the consensus
view of all councillors (note Cr Witlox was absent) was to proceed to a formal
consultation process. If the will and commitment wasn’t there why proceed?
Community
members I have spoken to about this are very disappointed, feeling let down, abandoned and
frustrated by the council decision.
I put forward
a comprehensive case as to why the local law was important for those extreme
cases of backyard feeding and neighbouring property damage. I talked about the
stress, both emotional and financial, the impact of cockatoo feeding has. I
highlighted the link between proximity of feeding and chewing behaviour (at a
community meeting
in July 2009 the DSE categorically stated that damage to buildings was caused
due to the feeding of the birds. It was also said that the feeding would be in
and around the vicinity of the damage in a radius of approximately 100 to 200
metres).
I talked
about satisfying the rules of evidence, that the local law wasn’t about ‘cockie
police’ patrolling backyards and was a legal framework to use in the most extreme of cases. I mentioned the health impacts both to birds
and humans. It seems that my arguments fell on deaf ears.
In speaking
against the motion Cr Cox said he would not support the local law as it did not
include state government property, he said it was pointless until we had the
cooperation of state government. Cr Cox is well aware that local
government does not have jurisdiction over crown land and in my view if we
waited for state government we’d be waiting forever. Cr Cox has supported the
development of the local law up till last night’s meeting, as recently as Feb
27, 2013 he was talking up the local law to Red Symons and listeners on ABC774.
Cr Witlox
spoke of his concern that innocent backyard feeding of birds would be the
target of vexatious complaints and the local law may cause new problems. At
least Cr Witlox has been consistent with his lack of support for the local law.
Cr
McAllister spoke to two experts about the issue, Ian Temby, ex DSE Senior
Policy Officer - Wildlife Damage Control Flora & Fauna Program, who supported
a legislative framework as the next best step (Ian’s advice was invaluable
in the development of education material back in 2009/10). She also spoke to
Healesville Sanctuary who advised that a “community education program not a
local law was the way to go”. Cr McAllister’s view was that an “education campaign
with positive reinforcement” was a more effective approach even though she “hears
the frustration of the community”.
Both Crs Child and Callanan did not speak to the motion but voted against it.
To those
community members who have travelled a long road in dealing with this issue,
waiting patiently for an efficient legal framework in which to tackle the issue
of cockatoo damage from backyard feeders, who have seen concerted education campaigns
on the issue fail in these extreme cases, I feel your frustration, the lack of
understanding of what you deal with on a daily basis seems to be lost on my
colleagues and I apologise for not making a successful case in your
favour.
For those
who are interested there has been a long history on this issue and it's
highlighted on numerous other blog entries including:
- Public
meeting at Burrinja June 2008 – link
- Urgent
meeting convened with government and agencies 9 June 2009 – link
- Continuing
cockie damage June 2009 – link
- More damage
and advocacy June 2009 – link
- Community
meeting re cockie damage in Kallista and Menzies Creek July 2009 – link
- Cockies
chew power lines 14 July 2009 – link
- Community
rallies against cockatoo feeding August 2009 – link
- Community
meeting in Kallista re cockie damage August 2009 – link
- Council to
consider options for legal framework September 2009 - link
- Council
supports legal framework to deal with backyard feeding 8 September 2009 – link
supported unanimously by councillors (Crs Cliff and McRae absent)
- Concerted education
campaign commences January 2010 – link
- Replacement
of damaged infrastructure January 2010 – link
- Education
campaign starts April 2010 – link
- Council
resolves to develop local law, advocacy and education campaign 13 April,
2010 – link
supported 7 votes for, 1 against (Cr Cliff absent)
- Representations
to modify license conditions for Grants Picnic Ground June 2010 – link
- Advocacy to
state government 26 October 2010 – link
- Council
supports public exhibition of local law 26 February 2013 - link supported 7 votes for, 1 against (Cr Avery absent)Labels: cockatoo damage, cr samantha dunn, local law, shire of yarra ranges
1 Comments:
This is a sad case...
farming in the Kallista/emerald area is now not viable because of these birds...
Suggestion for those next door to anyone anti-social enough to feed these damn birds, contact the council and seek prosecution under the Nuisance provisions of the Health Act, if I am correct, that activity presents a health risk, mainly the increased risk of psittacosis (I know of 2 cases of this within a 1km radius of me, one needing intensive care!), as well as being stressful from both damage and noise. you apparently only need to be afraid of the cockies too, it is for bees.... If it effects your well-being, then it may apply.
Insist that Council officers enforce it under the Nuisance provisions...
As a bee-keeper, I am aware that this is a tool that Councils can enforce control measures against bees if they are a nuisance, no reason that cockatoos are not the same. However, councils will be reluctant to use the Health act.... but if a few insist on it, then maybe Council may reconsider this.
Anyone who does get psittacosis, especially if they have complained to council, I wonder if there will be legal grounds to sue the council for lack of action, knowing that there is an increased risk to public safety.
(Parks vic are you reading this!)
On a side note, if I was to deliberately feed food to rats and mice and let them breed out of control and become a plague in the area, I'd have the health act used instantly against me (and probably some local laws) and rightly so. Then why is it not applying to Cockatoos?
Me, I am now buying a new shotgun, Cockatoos if damaging crops are non-protected wildlife, you can shoot them legally, if your property is safe to shoot on. (see the DSE web pages on cockatoos)
Post a Comment
<< Home