Could I ask people PLEASE! PLEASE!! You need to comment on the dispersal plan: http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/.../grey-headed-flying-foxes Email the Council - council@esc.gov.au And write to Greg Hunt here: greg.hunt.mp@environment.gov.au It is VITAL that you do these things to help PLEASE! Less than TWO WEEKS to comment! More information on this unbelievable development is below. * At a public meeting on Monday 16 May, Minister Greg Hunt declared a “national interest exemption”, removing all rights and protections for the Flying Foxes, and calling for immediate action against them; * Two consultancies have been undertaken, both organisations top of their fields, and both recommending that dispersal in this case will not work. Hunt committed $50,000 upfront to developing a new plan that takes into account the revised status of the flying foxes as totally unprotected, and committed a further $250,000 towards further action, and ongoing funding and support into the future. Environment minister Greg Hunt, in an unimaginable move at a public meeting in the Bay on Monday - removed all rights and protections from the Flying Foxes under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). He has declared an "national interest exemption", and has declared that there are now no barriers to prevent Council from taking any approach at all (including FIRE!) to remove the Flying Foxes immediately. Note the following question and answer from the meeting: Q: Why not get the army and burn them, like they did in Queensland? A: (Greg Hunt) We have given Council the complete freedom to do as they choose. Any Federal barrier is now removed. The destruction of over 20% of an entire species of NATIONAL importance cannot possibly satisfy the requirements of a "national interest exemption". A few hundred people in Bateman's Bay are inconvenienced, and a few hundred people is hardly “the national interest”. A taskforce has been assembled, made up of people who have been extremely vocal about removing the bats. It has been assembled for a single purpose – to remove the bats immediately, by any means necessary. The chair of the taskforce, Russell Schneider, offered “thanks to the Ministers for getting rid of all the green tape that gets in our way”. That is how the taskforce boss views laws in place to protect vulnerable animals – nothing but “green tape”. 95% of the species died in the last century. 30% of them died between 1998 - 1998. They were protected by Federal law. They were declared a vulnerable species because they are dying out so rapidly. Greg Hunt has said that they were declared vulnerable by the previous government, he doubts the legitimacy of their protected status, and promises that their status presents no barrier to immediate action against them. Despite their rapidly declining numbers and the fact that researchers predict their extinction within 25 – 100 years Greg Hunt is claiming for immediate and final action because “this is our watch”. On this Government's watch apparently no animal is safe. I do not know how Hunt proposes to get around the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974), the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995), and the NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (1979), as they are pieces of state legislation. Perhaps they no longer apply because of the “national interest exemption”? There can be no justification for nullifying these Acts, particularly the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. He is the minister for the Environment, he is supposed to protect our vulnerable native wildlife, not find ways around legislation so that he can wipe them out. There are over 24 million people in Australia; most of whom are not inconvenienced by the colony near the Bateman's Bay water gardens, many of whom will be outraged when they discover this “national interest exemption” declaration, and some of the statements from Monday night's meeting regarding one of our beloved Australian native animals. That colony represents a fifth of the global population of the species, it is a question much larger than the inconvenienced people of Bateman's Bay. How do you think these statements will be received nationally and internationally? "There will be NO BARRIER under the EPBC to moving immediately on dispersal. [Hunt is] declaring a “national interest exemption” which can be granted within 48 hours". "We are working through exemptions so that there is a free hand. If you want to clear the water gardens, we can and will give money to support that. I question whether their status as threatened is legitimate. Their status is, however, no barrier to dispersal. We just need to make sure they don't go from one place to another". “They were previously listed as threatened by a previous government. It's our watch now”. Flying foxes are a 'keystone species'; they play a vital role in our ecosystem, and they are a species upon which many other plants and animals depend. Removing their protection is an act so remiss in its duty of care to vulnerable species that it will one day be referred to as “catastrophic”. Greg Hunt and Andrew Constance both stated that they “do not agree” with the expert reports that have been prepared at taxpayer expense. Upon what grounds they have rejected the expert reports, they refused to say. Below are excerpts from the consultant reports prepared by Ecosure and Eco Logical, paid for by the people of the Eurobodalla Shire. Ecosure - “Ecosure is arguably the most experienced flying-fox management consultancy in Australia and has been involved in numerous dispersal programs. In our opinion, this is the highest risk dispersal scenario we have assessed..... As such, we strongly recommend against dispersal. A one-off dispersal is considered highly unlikely to achieve any medium or long-term outcome... Further, given such large influxes appear tied to the exceptional C. maculata flowering events and evidence suggests such flowering is on a seven-year cycle, it is considered likely that such large influxes will not occur again for some years”. Eco Logical - “Dispersal activities have unpredictable outcomes, are very costly, require ongoing commitment and maintenance, are often not successful and rarely achieve desirable outcomes for all stakeholders. Dispersal also often leads to flying-fox stress, injuries or fatalities, and may lead to increased human and animal health risk, nuisance issues, or human / flying-fox conflict at other sites”. Hunt is not advocating dispersal, he is pushing for removal by any means necessary – that means death, not re-location. How can he possibly justify to the Australian public ignoring both of the expert consultant reports in favour of immediate and drastic action? I suspect that this was an election stunt, and with your assistance, I would like for it to go horribly wrong. I used to work in public service, and as far as I am aware, subsequent to the calling of a Federal election, the Government goes into “caretaker mode”. How can Hunt commit and announce an upfront $50,000, a future $250,000, and then promise ongoing funding and support thereafter? As far as I am aware, his commitments are in breach of the Public Service Act (1999), specifically, he is in breach of the 'Caretaker Conventions'.