The recent Australian State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) ruling demanding the culling of 117 wild donkeys on Kachana Station is a stark reminder of a rigid, outdated approach to land management in Western Australia. It pits half a century of established "feral pest" dogma against two decades of on-the-ground ecological experimentation—and, depressingly, dogma won.
The Flaw in the 'Cull Everything' Dogma
For years, the story of non-native animals in Australia has been a simple one: pest equals problem; problem equals eradication. The figures are staggering: nearly 600,000 donkeys culled in the Kimberley since 1980 at a cost of over $8 million. Yet, despite this costly, decades-long campaign, the animals persist, and the underlying issues of land degradation and increasing bushfire risk remain.
Enter the Henggeler family of Kachana Station. Their position, backed by 20 years of research, is a direct challenge to this simplistic view: what if the "pest" could be managed to be part of the solution?
Kachana's son, Robert Henggeler, manages a difficult landscape—70% of the 78,000-hectare lease is marginal, rocky country. He argues that in this environment, their management options boil down to two things: grazing or fire. The donkeys, as different grazers than the few hundred cattle they run, are a tool for fire mitigation. They graze in the rocky ranges and gullies the cattle avoid, effectively reducing the fuel load in high-risk areas. This isn't just theory; it's a strategic management model that keeps a small, controlled herd within a 20 square kilometre fire management zone.
The Irony of Fire Risk vs. 'Feral' Risk
The irony of this ruling is palpable when viewed against the backdrop of the Kimberley's worsening fire crisis. The Department of Fire and Emergency Services called this year "one of the toughest on record," with a devastating 2.7 million hectares already burnt.
The Henggelers' strategy is a pragmatic response to this escalating threat. They view the donkeys as a firebreak asset that cycles vegetation and builds soil—a key component of regenerative agriculture principles. As family patriarch Chris Henggeler noted, why not "modify their behaviour and let them become part of the solution" if the country is telling us it needs more herbivores?
It seems entirely backward to mandate the destruction of a natural fire management team—which is operating effectively in a difficult-to-access 2.6% of the property—in the name of compliance.
A Regulatory Blind Spot
The SAT's reasoning, however, appears to be focused purely on the letter of the law, specifically the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act (BAM Act).
The Tribunal ultimately upheld the control notice because the station owners were not deemed to be "sufficiently managing the distribution and spread" of the donkeys. The targeted patrolling every 90 days and "incidental observations" were simply "not aggressive enough" to comply with the BAM Act's intent.
This highlights a profound regulatory blind spot. The Act—and the Tribunal interpreting it—appears to have no mechanism to accept managed feral populations as an ecological tool. It treats all donkeys as an uncontrolled risk, regardless of the observed ecological benefits and the family's stated commitment to culling any animal that strays. The decision, in essence, punishes innovation and demands adherence to a dated, cull-centric protocol.
The most frustrating part? Even the Tribunal conceded that new approaches deserve to be explored, noting that "land management practices have moved on since 1978." They suggest a more analytical approach may yield change—but their ruling mandates the slaughter before that research can be fully realised.
This isn't just a loss for 117 donkeys; it's a loss for progressive land management in Australia. The country deserves a biosecurity framework that can evolve beyond the simplistic culling hammer and embrace the nuanced, science-backed solutions that land managers like the Henggelers are pioneering.
Information source: WA Today
Do you have any comments in this Article? Leave your thoughts below.
Comments
Post a Comment
Leave your comment ...