14 February 2025

Government response to aerial brumby culling sparks outrage, and a warning

| Edwina Mason
Join the conversation
25
brumbies in KNP

Critics have accused the NSW Government of manipulating findings from a Senate inquiry into the aerial shooting of wild horses in Kosciuszko National Park to justify the practice, while supporters argue it is necessary for environmental protection. Photo: Michelle Brown.

The NSW Government’s response to a Senate inquiry into the aerial shooting of wild horses, or brumbies, in Kosciuszko National Park (KNP) has ignited controversy, drawing sharp criticism from inquiry chair Emma Hurst, legal experts and conservation advocates.

Ms Hurst has again accused the government of hijacking the inquiry’s findings with the assistance of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party.

The Upper House inquiry was launched in August 2023, shortly after the government sought public feedback on a proposal to reintroduce aerial shooting as a culling method for managing wild horse populations in the park. The practice was formally adopted in October 2023.

The inquiry committee proceeded with five public hearings between December 2023 and July 2024, examining population count methodologies, threats to endangered species in KNP, human safety and animal welfare concerns, alternative population control methods, and the impact of previous aerial shooting operations, which had led to a statewide ban.

Their final report, released in November 2024, made eight findings and six recommendations, including the continuation of aerial shooting and annual horse population counts. It also called for an investigation into the effectiveness of fertility control and reviewing the training of aerial shooters to ensure best practices.

In its response this week, the NSW Government has supported the report’s recommendations, reaffirming its commitment to controlling wild horse populations to protect the park’s fragile ecosystems. It defended aerial culling as a necessary tool, stating that it is carried out in accordance with strict animal welfare guidelines and monitored by independent observers. The response also emphasised the importance of maintaining biodiversity in KNP and mitigating the damage caused by the overpopulation of wild horses.

Ms Hurst claims the final recommendations were manipulated to support the government’s stance, rather than reflecting community concerns and expert testimony.

READ ALSO Aerial shooting of wild horses: NSW inquiry chair condemns final report as ‘unbalanced’

“This is not the report I had drafted as chair, and it did not reflect the views of the community nor the many experts we heard from in the inquiry hearings,” she said.

Before the final report was “gutted” by Labor and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, she said it highlighted the huge welfare risks and called for aerial shooting to cease immediately.

“The evidence we heard at the inquiry was damning,” Ms Hurst said.

“The government was shooting brumbies during foaling season, the methodology used to count the number of brumbies was dramatically flawed, and animal welfare experts raised serious concerns about the standard operating procedure, which the government chose to ignore.”

Upper House inquiry

The Upper House inquiry consisted of five public hearings between December 2023 and July 2024. Photo: NSW Parliament.

The government’s endorsement of aerial shooting has also been condemned by Marilyn Nuske, principal lawyer and founder of the Brumby Action Group.

Ms Nuske says the government was failing in its duty to comply with legislation mandating the retention of 3000 sustainably-managed heritage brumbies in four designated zones.

“Aerial shooting was banned for 20 years due to proven cruelty. Since November 2023, $8.2 million has been spent on culling brumbies in retention zones without any clear indication of how many survive,” she said.

She cited veterinary expert Dr Andrea Harvey, who claimed that NPWS standard operating procedures cannot be humane, largely due to the helicopter chase-panic factor, followed by shooting fallen brumbies with up to 15 bullets.

“That’s not supported by national regulator PestSmart and that certainly isn’t humane,” Ms Nuske said.

Warning that large-scale culling could not only wipe out certain heritage brumby bloodlines but also breach existing legislation, Ms Nuske has challenged NSW Environment Minister Penny Sharpe to embrace the precautionary principle, which advocates for taking preventative action when potential harm is uncertain.

“The Minns Government response has failed to address its most basic duty under the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Act 2018,” Ms Nuske said.

Supporters of the government’s response, including the Invasive Species Council (ISC), have defended aerial culling as a necessary measure to control feral horse populations and protect native ecosystems.

READ ALSO Wild horses’ dawn brawl captured in Cooma couple’s video

ISC advocacy director Jack Gough welcomed the government’s position, asserting that bipartisan support existed for reducing brumby numbers in the park.

“We expect removals to continue professionally, safely, and humanely by the dedicated national parks staff,” Mr Gough said.

He also called for a repeal of laws that protect feral horses over native wildlife.

The government’s response has also drawn criticism from Wagga-based MLC Wes Fang, who sat on the Upper House committee.

In parliament this week (12 February), he condemned Labor for rejecting the original report’s findings, calling the revised version inadequate and dismissive of the cultural significance of brumbies in Australia.

“The government response is less than adequate and does not acknowledge the iconic status the brumbies have in Australia,” Mr Fang said.

He urged the government to respect the views of brumby advocates and Indigenous communities.

Join the conversation

25
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Philip Creagh4:57 pm 17 Feb 25

Clearly there will never be agreement about the best way to control the population of feral horses within NSW National Parks. The discussion at the moment is on the KNP north of the Snowy Mountains Highway.

It is with some trepidation that one steps into this argument. So in my opinion the following points have not been addressed satisfactorily.
1. The horses have been shown to disturb vegetation and stream beds in northern part of KNP. However in an extensive literature search there is not one study that demonstrates any actual damage to the numbers of say corroboree frogs, native rats and so on. The gold standard for any dramatic change to an established ecosystem, as is present now, is to identify the threats and then prove the damage to the animals/biodiversity concerned.
What the ‘ecologists’ have stated is that because the environment appears disturbed (many photos can be seen, often of the same place) then this MUST be detrimental to the ‘little creatures’. That does not logically follow – it may in fact be beneficial. I discount Cherubin et al’s paper in Victoria as it has a glaring error of logic.
2. If the environment’s stasis is disturbed so much by the removal of the horses and leaving the remains behind then what will replace it? Over 2.5 years about three and a half thousand tonnes of hoses has been left in KNP. This is ideal food for pigs, wild dogs and foxes who WILL increase in numbers. Pigs have an amazing level of fecundity and will replace the horses in my opinion. Very little culling of pigs occurs in KNP.
3. The situation with Deer is worse in many ways, again they have a high level of fecundity and being a two toed ungulate, together with pigs are susceptible to foot and mouth disease. Sambar deer are in very large numbers in the southern end of KNP and I see no evidence of any serious attempt to reduce numbers.

One feral horse is one too many . The current population is a reflection of the stupidity of our European forebears who didn’t give a hoot about “cultural heritage ” or the effect of their careless disregard for the natural environment as it has been for millennia . Horses are just one of the stupid mistakes we’ve made , deer , goats , camels , pigs , buffalo , cats , toads and worst of all , feral humans who want to save them all , just like “home ” .

Nicole Taylor9:30 pm 15 Feb 25

Regardless of opinions, the fact remains that there was an independent inquiry held whose findings were basically erased and replaced with the Government’s own rhetoric to suit their own agenda. This is just more proof that whoever has the most influence and money gets what they want regardless of what’s ethical, or in the best interest of the country or the people. Soon there will be no KNP for anyone, let alone the horses. Sad.

Vicki Ballantyne5:37 am 16 Feb 25

It has to be asked why has the Shooters Party changed they’re minds first they wouldn’t support the culling then amazingly they changed they’re minds the same could be said years ago with Barillaro he did exactly the same thing….
Is it promises for future Government deals???

How does the removal of feral pests support your claim that soon there will be no KNP?

Same old pro Brumby avocates trying to distort the facts and muddy the waters trying to save the feral horses.

I understand Ms Hurst has a deep love for animals and that was reflected in her ridiculous draft as chair of the inquiry. It only followed the evidence of those she wanted to agree. She was obsessed with operations taking place during foaling season and the expert evidence was that horses can foal at anytime of the year. The government addressed this by directing the foals to be shot first. Oh no, you can’t shoot the poor little babies. If you allowed people like Ms Hurst to dictate how invasive species are managed there would be nothing done.

It is in fact the so called European cultural heritage Ms Nuske so often rants about that is responsible for the proliferation of invasive animals and plants in today’s National Parks. The early pioneers didn’t care for the land. It was all about making money. When the horses were of no value to them they were left behind. The feral horses were considered a pest by these pastoralists and slaughtered in the thousands for their hide and hair. Now they want them called an icon. So the government is actually following the cultural heritage example by culling the horses.

patricia gardiner9:58 am 16 Feb 25

Peter, I couldn’t agree more strongly.
Feral horses are about as ionic as a cane toad.

A few loudmouthed National Party types, used to demanding and getting their way, dreamed up this heritage nonsense so they could make money of the horses they don’t in the National Parks, they don’t own.

Ms Nuske gets a number of things wrong yet again. Firstly the entire program of removing horses has cost the government $8.2M. That includes all methods of removal and not just aerial shooting. Ms Nuske also has no evidence the government is failing in its legislated obligations to keep 3000 horses in the retention zones. This is a purely speculative and bias statement. Aerial shooting was stopped for horses in 2000 due to one horse not being instantly killed. It continued for all other invasive species. PestSmart is not the national regulator for aerial shooting. It is a private company engaged in areal culling of invasive species and has its own SOP. The NSW government has adopted and then modified that SOP. To suggest PestSmart regulates the operations of governments is blatantly misleading. No evidence was presented to the inquiry that showed aerial shooting of horses was inhumane. In fact the opposite was presented by experts. The operations of NPWS have been reviewed first hand in the field. Helicopter chase times were mentioned in the inquiry and it the evidence presented did not support any ascertain that time was excessive. I don’t really see how it matters if a horse is shot 15 times in a matter of seconds or twice if the kill is effected. There was no evidence that animal suffered greater or took longer to die. So did Ms Nuske actually say anything that was factual. No.

Marilyn Nuske6:51 am 15 Feb 25

The Legislation provides a mechanism for environmental stewardship and protection of the Heritage value of brumbies recognised by parliament.
It’s time non government organisations had their control of government portfolios removed.

Marilyn Nuske6:44 am 15 Feb 25

Dianne you have clearly not seen the photographic evidence of the outcome of aerial shooting, brumbies with single gut and back shots, bodies wrapped around trees in painful death, long drawn out deaths, live aborted foals left to be consumed alive by predators. There is nothing more cruel than aerial shooting, why it was banned, and must stop now. Rehoming is a management plan alternative that can resume after a credible population survey of retention zones.

Vicki Ballantyne5:44 am 16 Feb 25

Marilyn what you have to understand National Parks & RSPCA are very selective in the views on cruelty….
The RSPCA have lost me never will I donate to them (which they always got a donation once a year from our Family)
If there was a body to protect these horses I would of thought it would be the RSPCA…Shame on them!

What sort of
death do you think feral horses face in the wild?
Next to none, die a peaceful death of old age. More likely to die of pain, starvation and being mauled to death alive, either from a broken leg or other injury, or being eaten alive when they are too old and feeble to outrun predators and carrion eating birds, feeding off the incapacitated animal.

Marilyn Nuske6:36 am 15 Feb 25

The evidence on oath of expert Dr Andrea Harvey, that the aerial shooting adopted by NPWS “cannot be humane” was totally disregarded in deference to the evidence of RSPCA, which signed off on the NPWS standard operating procedures is highly questionable. I believe an inquiry into the whole mess of influence by non government organisations is called for

Marilyn Nuske6:21 am 15 Feb 25

It’s time the Minns Labor Government took control of the Environment Portfolio. The Heritage value of brumbies was recognised in Legislation in 2018, after robust parliamentary debate. The Legislation mandates a management plan to balance ecological stewardship, and 3,000 brumbies may live across 4 retention zones. Minister Sharpe, has unilaterally decided to “keep shooting brumbies until we reach 3,000” in the most cruel aerial shooting since the Guy Fawkes massacre in 2000, without certainty of numbers in each zone. Adopting a callous cavalier approach to management must stop. An immediate credible population count taken across the four zones to ensure the Heritage value and Legislation is respected. The Cairns distance modelling was “corrupted” in 2019, with flawed outcomes, it’s obvious a better method must be used. Any numbers above 3,000 could be passively trapped for rehoming.
In the last 12 months $8.2 million was frittered on shooting brumbies in contemptuous disregard for our parliamentary system or humane management.

This article quotes two brumby advocates – Emma Hurst and Marilyn Nuske – who claim that witnesses at the Inquiry raised concerns about the accuracy of the horse count in Kosciuszko and about animal welfare outcomes of aerial shooting. Yes, those concerns were raised, but they were also answered, comprehensively, by other witnesses, such as representatives from the RSPCA and Dr Don Fletcher. A balanced article would have quoted some of those answers.

David Evelyn7:40 pm 15 Feb 25

Linda, have you not seen the overwhelming evidence of many many Brumbies been shot so inhumanely that it’s hard to believe. Gut shot, back shot, neck and face shot, left to slowly die, some mares with foals at foot, all after being terrorised by a helicopter and chased some distances herding them into the tree lines where it’s almost impossible to get a clean humane shot but is further from the public eye, just a lazy unprofessional method. It’s inhumane and disgusting. It’s illegal and against all official procedures. This evidence has been reported and forwarded to rspca that are heavily funded by Govt but has been ignored, wonder why? Their official response is “Nothing to see here, our report shows no cruelty” rspca are as useful as a chocolate teapot, and Don Fletcher wouldn’t know the rear end of a horse to the front end. Hardly relable witnesses when they’re blinded by their agenda.
Number counts aside, it’s the outright cruelty that people are passionate about trying to Stop From Happening and anyone condoning this type of cruelty should be absolutely ashamed and publicly called out for it. CRULTY IS CRUELTY, ALL CREATURES GREAT AND SMALL

Kyla Earsman11:12 pm 15 Feb 25

As a volunteer for the Invasive pests, Linda, this hardly qualifies you to make an impartial assessment. We’ll wait & see what comes out on a legal playing field, shall we? Atticus has already abandoned the sinking ship. Penny will be next.

Dianne Thompson1:44 pm 14 Feb 25

Well you couldn’t more more inhumane than this, and Mr Fang is supposed to care and protect these horses. What a hypocrite.
Source: Draft Hansard 2 Aug 24 Animal Welfare Committee Inquiry
The Hon. WES FANG: It wasn’t always the case that they used to trap the horses, was it? They used to go in there. You used to have brumby advocates on horseback, they would go in, they would, for want of a better term, corral and herd the horses out of the park into areas. Then they would, from there, rehome them. Given that it used to work so successfully a couple of decades ago, why has a program like that stopped? Given that there is such an appetite for them, given that they’ve said they’re willing to do it and it’s actually a better welfare outcome all round, why aren’t we doing that? At worst, they’re going to end up in an illegal knackery and shot and, apparently, that’s not so much of a problem?
ATTICUS FLEMING: I won’t aim to comment on the detail, Mr Fang, other than to say the advice that I’ve seen is that it does not deliver a better welfare outcome.
The Hon. WES FANG: How is that the case?
ATTICUS FLEMING: Because of the stress involved in that operation. Let me try and come back to you on notice around your question generally. The other part of the answer, or response, is to note that it is not one of the approved methods in the plan. Obviously, from the National Parks and Wildlife Service perspective, our job is to implement the plan.

patricia gardiner9:46 am 14 Feb 25

It is now time to overturn the legislation introduced by Barilaro, “mandating the retention of 3000 sustainably-managed heritage brumbies”
Feral horses have no place in any area designated for the protection of native species.

Totally Agree

Yes protection should never have been given for a feral animal.

David Evelyn7:48 pm 15 Feb 25

In that case Patricia, there’s no place for roller coasters, hydro schemes, ski fields, clearing for ‘green’ turbines, further high end accommodation developments.
And heritage horses aren’t feral, they’ve been there for near 200 years getting on quite well with all the frogs and rats, well before people decided they don’t like them

Daily Digest

Do you like to know what’s happening around your region? Every day the About Regional team packages up our most popular stories and sends them straight to your inbox for free. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.