Victorian Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act enhanced to protect wildlife from fruit tree netting

Have you seen tree nettings before? They are not commonly seen in Hong Kong because most of us are living in high-rise buildings, yet using such is a norm among fruit growers in Victoria. It is used to protect fruits and the trees from hungry birds and squirrels while still allowing light and air into the tree's canopy. However, if you have looked closely at the netting, you will find out that the holes of the nettings are actually quite small.

Wildlife animals are often trapped in the existing netting of fruit trees, and because they would keep on struggling to escape from it, they often suffer horrific injury or even death. Even though they were not dead when found, they might have to be euthanized because of serious injuries.

New Victorian legislation, starting in September, aims to protect wildlife from domestic fruit tree nets.(Supplied: Bat Conservation and Rescue Qld Inc)

CEO of Wildlife Victoria, Lisa Palma has said: -

‘The most common species of wildlife that find themselves trapped in this netting are grey headed flying foxes, which are a threatened species, and a range of birds.’"

In last year’s summer alone, Wildlife Victoria discovered nearly 300 cases of wildlife caught in domestic fruit tree netting, not to mention cases where animals are already deceased or unreported.

In order to alleviate this problem, the Victoria's Protection of Cruelty to Animals (POCTA) Act 2019 has set the restriction to domestic fruit growers in using nettings with an aperture of five millimetres by five millimetres at full stretch, allowing wildlife animals to escape when trapped. The reason why nettings are still legitimate because the government still have to ensure the interests of food and fibre industries. The penalties for breaching the laws and using incorrect netting would be significant, costing AUS$3,303 (equivalent to HK$ 18486) for a breach. Vendors advertising the illegal netting or offering it for sale would also subject to a fine of AUS$660 (equivalent to HK$ 3694).

However, there is an exemption of this provision, is that commercial growers do not need to adhere to the new law. This is a weird exception accompanied by an explanation from the Victorian Government that it was not considering expanding the new regulations to commercial growers because the development of the POCTA Act indicated that the area of concern for wildlife entanglement was in household situations.

This explanation was unacceptable. First, the Wildlife Act 1975 the government was citing had been enacted 45 years ago and no proper review was conducted after its enactment. The situation has long been changed. Second, the wildlife would not know how to distinguish fruit trees grown by household growers from those by commercial growers. They are subject to the same injury regardless of where the netting is placed. Therefore, the new act should also extend to commercial growers as well.

Besides, the classification of wildlife as an agricultural pest should be reformed. Wildlife was often considered as pests because they might affect crop yields, yet with the new nettings, they should be able to co-exist with humans, even farmers.

Courtesy of Kelly Ma.

Main Source: ABC