GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED RETRACTION OF THE QUEENSLAND TICK LINE

When we purchased our property at Tingoora 26 years ago, we were in a tick-infected region of Queensland. Shortly thereafter we decided, along with numerous graziers in the area to eradicate ticks completely and become tick free. In order to achieve this, Queensland Government insisted we receive 90% support for the project from producers who would be affected. Copious amounts of money was spent printing letters of petition to the government to bless our efforts and we finally received their stamp of approval to proceed. Countless thousands of hard-earned dollars have subsequently been poured into eradication programs, and our locality was finally declared free of ticks approximately twenty years ago.

Hesitant as we are to say this, it seems government was working tirelessly against the success of this venture right from its inception. A light truck could barely carry the information we have that appears to lend credibility to this conjecture.  Now government has come up with a drastically retrograde step, proposing to move many who tirelessly fought to be tick-free, and in whose number we are included, backwards into tick infestation. A government on-line survey in the guise of public consultation is rife with 'loaded' questions and has the capacity to lead participants into deciding in the government's favour. If government gets its way, it will wipe from the board the astronomical amount of finance and time we producers have spent securing our markets and animals' welfare. It will once more immerse us in the plethora of rules and regulations attached to being in a 'tick infected' area and will result in making the additional markets we have toiled so hard to access unviable. All the advantages of our tick free status will potentially be ripped from our grasp without compensation or reimbursement for our loss and count as nothing our progressive outlook on animal welfare.

Let's look for a moment at animal welfare. Tick infestation is costing the beef industry $161 million a year. Most producers care for their animals and are willing to outlay the cost of keeping this parasite from invading their herds but there are others who either don't care, hold second jobs off-farm or are simply ignorant of the terrible effects ticks can have. The photos attached to this tirade are those of cattle we purchased from a sale yard some years ago. So laden with ticks nothing we did could save the one in the sling and it took months before the survivors remotely resembled even forward stores. Besides that, ticks cause Bovine Babesiosis (Redwater, Tick Fever) in cattle but of course that can be managed' by costly treatments. Hooray for the chemical companies who will be the big winners if this government's efforts to plunge clean producers back into 'dirty' country becomes reality.

Cattle in tick infested areas are forced to submit to more time in yards and the trauma of being compelled through plunge dips in order to 'control' ticks. Ticks are becoming increasingly resistant to current acaracides, which will mean days and perhaps even weeks spent standing in yards eating poor-quality hay until the ticks finally succumb from desperation and drop off. Of course, the producer must wear the cost of their incarceration and the feed consumed. He will also have to bear the brunt of any weight loss that may be incurred, potentially restricting him from marketing his cattle when he needs to. Cattle do not thrive in yards unless they are lot-fed

There is a growing world-wide trend towards chemical-free produce.  Australia prides itself on being very strict on chemical residue in their export beef. Producers must adhere to the withholding periods on the containers of chemicals they use and from which corporate conglomerates are reaping billions of dollars. But what if some producers don't follow the instructions? Not every container of beef is tested for chemical residue so what guarantees are in place to ensure chemicals aren’t leaked into our national and international beef supplies? Certainly a rucus ensues when a container of beef tests positive to chemical residue - the sound of the stable door slamming shut after the horse has bolted. Restrictions are slapped into place with lightning speed, money is lost and the only winner we can see is a miserable little insect the size of a finger nail that appears to be resistant even to Government legislation. Surely common sense can see the advantages of ridding ourselves of this parasite once and for all?

 "What about the huge cattle stations?" people will say.  "They could never eradicate their ticks surely?" Well, they managed to eradicate Brucellosis and Tuberculosis with the BTEC program, a much more difficult and costly enterprise than killing a few ticks. The United States of America have more deer and other wildlife than we can blame for carrying ticks and yet they were able to eradicate this pest 100 years ago because they decided they would. It's all in the will to do.

In the non-commercial companion-animal world, there are owners who conscientiously care deeply for their pets and there are those who don't. We often hear of extreme cases of cruelty perpetrated on pets and it seems Governments have bent over backwards to protect them from enduring inhumane treatment - rightfully so. However, to achieve this protection they have relegated Stock inspectors to do the job once solely the jurisdiction of RSPCA; Stock inspectors who used to be employed only in the cattle industry and of whom there are no longer sufficient numbers to ensure the Bio Security Act tick legislation is enforced.  Just as pet owners can be inhumane and do appalling things to their pets, so can some producers inexcusably neglect their livestock. Why should protective laws be tightened for one group of animals but relaxed for others?

Anyone concerned for the welfare of all animals, chemical usage on the produce they consume and specifically for the additional stress and trauma cattle will be forced to tolerate will surely see sense in Governments becoming proactive towards eradication, not just 'control' of this insidious pest. Perhaps they will tell Queensland Government that this is a diabolically backward step for a state that prides itself on being progressive and 'moving foreward'. We hope so.

Val Wicks 

.