Discussions continue about the death of cattle on Mataranka Station, the Northern Territory training/education cattle station owned by Charles Darwin University. Estimates of the cattle that starved to death between September 2009 and May 2010 range from 200 to 800, but really the quantity is irrelevant because 200 is too many, if claims are correct that the deaths were entirely preventable.
The facts appear to be:
- last year there were 4,000 cattle on the 770 square kilometre Mataranka Station. That’s way overstocking in this kind of country, which is not very fertile and located in 32″ rainfall wet/dry tropics (i.e. there is a long dry season interrupted by a few months of pasture-growing rain each year). The listed species include spinifex.
- apparently employees on the station notified Charles Darwin University management about the problem of starving stock
- apparently university students notified Charles Darwin University management about the problem of starving stock
- apparently others in the cattle industry notified authorities that there was a problem – as early as August 2008
- it seems that university management did not act immediately or even within a few months, to fix the problem of starving stock
- it would appear university management and the NT Government then tried to cover the issue up
Few media reports seem to refer to the facts contained in the actual report put out by the NT Ombudsman’s office. While this report runs to more than 200 pages, you only have to look at the start of the report to realise that complaints of ‘animal cruelty’ (as distinct from neglect, which is probably the more accurate term in this instance) were being investigated as early as August 2008 and the first page of the third section to discover that there complaints about the condition and treatment of horses on Mataranka.
Without being there and knowing the people involved it is impossible to know the truth. How many complaints have been made by fairyland university students covered in piercings but who think a single eartag in a cow’s ear is cruel? That all ponies should be rolling fat and have neat little shod hooves? That cattle never die of disease, old age or other unavoidable causes? Regardless, it’s fairly safe to presume that:
a) where there is a lot of smoke over several years, over at least several different issues/instances, there’s probably at least a bit of fire (if not a raging inferno) and
b) public servants probably shouldn’t ever own and run cattle stations.
Unfortunately for the whole beef industry and farmers everywhere, it has thrown fuel on the fire of animal rights extremist groups like PETA and Voiceless, who are choosing to hold the Mataranka Station cattle deaths up as a reason why no cattle stations at all should not exist. Which akin to saying that no-one should own a dog because of one case of dog owner cruelty and neglect. But many PETA and Voiceless members don’t believe domestic pets should exist either, so I guess that comparison won’t bother them.
In a hilarious piece of typical bureaucratic rubbish, according to an ABC report, the NT Ombudsman Carolyn Richards is quoted as saying that the University must present a ‘new station business plan within three months, including animal stocking rates, food and water provision, staffing and lines of responsibility’. What a pack of drivel – it’s this sort of theoretical paper-pushing that caused the problem in the first place. In reality, every season is different and every year management must tweak the system to fit seasonal conditions. Writing reports doesn’t fix problems – never has and never will.
What Mataranka Station simply needs is a competent industry-standard cattle station manager with the authorityto run the station efficiently. No amount of written business plans will make a station run efficiently if the station manager is a) not a competent cattleman and manager and b) doesn’t have the authority to act immediately to do what is necessary to avoid or fix problems. I have no idea whether Mataranka Station manager Ian Gray was at fault or whether it was simply that he wasn’t able to act to fix the problem/s.
Yes there are some cruel people living in the bush however they are only a tiny percentage of all livestock owners. In reality, the percentage of cruel or neglectful domestic pet owners in urban areas is infinitely higher.
Sometimes rural employees are directed by their employers to act in a way that is not in the best interests of livestock and no amount of discussing it will change the instruction. This places employees in an incredibly difficult position – either follow out instructions or get sacked (not just losing their job but also their home, community etc – they may be left with no money to move and nowhere to go to. And an unjustified stain on their reputation as an employee, in an industry that though geographically vast, is relatively small in people terms. It’s vastly different to working in town, where a job loss simply means looking for another a few doors down.).
However on the few occasions when I’ve heard of owners directing staff (usually station managers) to carry out instructions that aren’t intelligent, with regard to animal welfare, more often than not the employee concerned will use their initiative and do whatever they can to fix the problem without the knowledge of the property owner. But if it comes to buying fodder for starving stock or lick for phosphorous deficient stock; or transportation to saleyards, abattoirs or agistment (all involving many thousands of dollars), obviously employees aren’t able to fix the problem unless they are in complete control of the cattle station’s finances. A rare thing these days with the rise and rise of head office bean-counters who wouldn’t know one end of a cow from the other. The most common problem I’ve encountered is stock being left in a paddock where there is insufficient feed, either due to overstocking ( a classic big pastoral company greed issue) /drier conditions than expected (more a smaller property issue); and a refusal of management to sell stock (because the price is low) or move them to agistment. (Handfeeding stock on big cattle stations is not a practical of financially feasible option.) The station manager or headstockman will simply ‘accidentally’ leave a gate open for the stock to move themselves into neighbouring paddock/s where there is more feed.
The vast majority of people living and working on cattle stations are there because they care about animals and the environment. The few that don’t should be weeded out and sent to brick and tile suburbs where they belong, and prevented from owning cattle stations and sheep properties (and domestic pets). Mostly it is owners who fall into this category, because it is owners who may have had little or no hands-on experience and they’re the ones most likely to be in the business for reasons other than the love of land and animals. I.e. these owners are simply in the business to make as large a profit as possible or they’re on a ‘cattle baron’ ego trip. Or most commonly, both. There’s very few people that don’t like stock that end up spending their lives working with them, so those at the coal face are rarely a problem when it comes to animal welfare. Working in the bush is a conscious decision it’s not something people just fall into because they’ve got no other options. Especially these days, with mining companies offering wages and conditions that are so much higher than what is offered working on the land.
It’s not politically correct or fashionable to raise it but it has to be said, it’s the elephant in the room. The exception to all of the above concerns a number of indigenous-run cattle stations (certainly not all). That’s the location of the vast majority of animal cruelty and neglect cases that I’ve heard of. I wish it were otherwise, but that’s how it is. And everyone in the northern cattle business knows it.