inappropriate national park land use’’ p. 33. But, the graziers claim that the cattle do little if
any environmental damage and that the continua- tion of grazing yields significant cultural and her-
itage benefits for society.
The conflict between conservationists and gra- ziers came to a head in mid-1998 when most
existing alpine grazing licences came up for re- newal. The outcome was that in August 1998, all
alpine grazing licences were renewed for a further 7 years. In this paper we consider whether this
decision represents an opportunity lost to remove the cattle from the VANP once and for all or an
appropriate land use decision given existing benefits and costs of grazing.
Although there are numerous examples of re- source use conflict analysis in the literature
Rhodes and Wilson, 1995; Brown, 1998; Skon- hoft, 1998 there are particular features specific to
this problem that make it unique. First, the deci- sion to renew is important because the AANP has
been identified for nomination to the World Her- itage Convention. Conservationists argue that for
a potential nomination to succeed land uses such as cattle grazing need to stop. This point is made
by Mosley 1988, Kirkpatrick 1994 who argue that the AANP is of outstanding international
significance on the criteria used by the World Heritage Convention. But cattle grazing is an
incompatible activity as it significantly harms the integrity of the VANP. This land use conflict is
therefore taking place over a tract of land that is considered by many as unique by global environ-
mental criteria. Second, alpine grazing is linked with significant cultural and heritage traditions
non-IndigenousEuropean. Alpine grazing has been practised for over 150 years and many of the
graziers have a long association with the area. This, in combination with the strong cultural
identity produced as a result of poetry and out- back imagery, places this land use firmly in the
mind of all Australians. Intrinsically linked to this are the political realities that impinge on land use
decisions. Third, the precise details in the grazing licence that allows a grazier to graze cattle in the
VANP are interesting. To be able to operate a licence a grazier needs to be an approved person.
What exactly constitutes an approved person is important in seeking a solution to this conflict.
The structure of the paper is as follows. We begin by providing an overview of alpine grazing
and the scientific evidence detailing the impact of grazing. In Section 3 we consider why the grazing
licences were renewed despite the scientific evi- dence. Section 4 provides an evaluation of alter-
native management options that could have been implemented instead of the licence renewal. Fi-
nally in Section 5 we provide conclusions.
2. An overview of alpine grazing
2
.
1
. Grazing history and practice The high alpine plains were discovered by Eu-
ropeans in 1824, with grazing by domestic live- stock beginning in 1852. It became common
practise to take livestock onto the alpine plains during the summer to feed. As Hancock 1972
explains, ‘‘graziers were looking to the high coun- try to save them from disaster in years of
drought’’ p. 134. By 1900 over-grazing was oc- curring and in combination with the extreme
weather conditions, caused severe damage to the fragile alpine environment. By the 1940s environ-
mental conditions gave cause for much concern, and in 1946 the Victorian government modified
existing land use practices. Sheep and horses were banned from grazing and the burning of the up-
land pasture curtailed. For cattle, the length of the grazing season was restricted; numbers re-
duced and specific dates set for entry and exit. In the 1950s and 1960s grazing was further re-
stricted, and more recently cattle have been re- moved from some of the most sensitive areas of
the VANP, e.g. Mounts Hotham, Loch and Feathertop.
1
In 1989 some 503 000 hectares of land in the VANP were leased for grazing only 10 of this
can be used. By 1995, 7800 free ranging cattle were permitted on the VANP. The 100 existing
grazing licences were renewed annually until 1991 1992 when the licence period was extended to 7
years. Licence renewal has generally been without
1
Interestingly, cattle grazing was terminated in all other parts of the AANP apart from the VANP by 1972.
question and for this reason the graziers came to view the licence as private property; details can be
found in the 1975 National Parks Act, Grazing Licence in the Alpine National Park, Section 32D,
amended by the National Parks Alpine National Park Act of 1989. The licence details the number
of cattle, the access dates December to April, who is entitled to operate a licence, the cost of operation
and the restrictions placed upon the exchange and future entitlement. At present graziers pay a fee of
4.00 per cow each season.
To be eligible to own and operate a licence, a grazier needs to be deemed an approved person by
the Victorian Government who takes advice from the Alpine Advisory Committee.
2
Historically gra- ziers belonged to the Mountain Cattlemen Associ-
ation MCA and as such were automatically considered approved persons. In addition during
the period over which a licence operates, ‘‘the licensee may apply to transfer or assign to a
member of a family of Mountain Cattleman or any other approved person’’ Clause 18, Grazing Li-
cence. Transfer within the family can be defended on the basis of farming skills that are necessary to
operate a grazing licence.
2
.
2
. En6ironmental impact of grazing
3
Scientific investigation of the alpine region began in the 1850s. However, the work of Carr in the
1940s and subsequent research forms the basis of scientific evidence about the impact of cattle graz-
ing today. Wahren et al. 1994 used 50 years of survey data to argue that cattle do have a substan-
tial and lasting impact, with grazing altering the structure and composition of sub-alpine grassland
and heathland vegetation, as well as significantly influencing the natural regeneration of the ecosys-
tems. An example of the effects of grazing identified by
Wahren et al. 1994 is the impact on the frequency of wildflowers in Pretty Valley grassland plots.
Between 1947 and 1994, the frequency of Celmisia and Craspedia increased substantially on ungrazed
plots. These findings were contrasted with grazed plots on which there was no change to the existing
cover. Leptorhynchos, is abundant on grazed plots as it vigorously colonises bare, inter-tussock spaces
that result from grazing, giving it an advantage over other species. If there were no grazing Celmisia
would replace Leptorhynchos. Ground cover is much poorer on grazed plots compared to ungrazed
areas. Wahren et al. also found that cattle prefer to graze where herbaceous plants predominate, in
mossbeds along drainage lines and these areas subsequently become trampled and badly dam-
aged. Apart from their ecological significance, mossbeds are important in catchment hydrology
because of their retarding effect on the release of water to streams this helps to prolong the spring
and summer flowers, their promotion of early snow melt, and their action in filtering silt. Another
biophysical hot spot is the snow patch herbfields, again prone to grazing-related damage such as bare
ground and poor quality cover. In the areas where snow patches remain for long periods of the year,
the soils remain moist, the flora that grow are palatable and as a result favoured by the cattle.
Wahren et al. 1994 also found that grazing does not reduce the likelihood of upland bush fires.
Cattle mostly eat snowgrass and other herbs. Shrub cover has increased as a result, which does not
reduce fire risk, but instead is more likely to enhance it. Fire prevention is spurious as a claim
for the continuation of grazing. Also, by producing bare ground, which provides an opportunity for
weeds to establish and spread, grazing has also been partly responsible for spreading exotic weeds.
3. Why still grazing?
