In Australia’s Snowy Mountains, a Battle Over Brumbies

Experts are calling for a substantial cull of the wild horses living in New South Wales’ Kosciuszko National Park. The government isn’t having it.

The peatlands that drape the high, treeless slopes surrounding Australia’s tallest peak form a natural archive. “They are unusual bits of landscape in that they actually record their own history,” says Geoffrey Hope, an environmental historian at the Australian National University, who has been studying these unique bogs for more than 15 years.

The brumbies have created gullies through the peatlands, increased turbidity in streams, trampled vegetation, and created manure piles acting as ‘invasion windows’ for exotic plants.

In this famously dry continent, the peatlands of Kosciuszko National Park in New South Wales are remarkable in their persistent sogginess. They experience heavy frost and snow in winter and, occasionally bushfires in summer. Yet somehow, they endure, providing a haven for one of Australia’s most critically-endangered species, the brilliant yellow and black Corroboree Frog. But recently, a new history is being stamped into these delicate ecosystems by the hooves of wild horses.

Locally known as brumbies, the region’s free-roaming horses — technically feral, though colloquially called wild — are the descendants of those supposedly abandoned by English settler James Brumby when he left Australia for Tasmania in 1804. As the wild herds grew, so did their tough and hardy reputation, catching the imagination of Australian poet Andrew Barton ‘Banjo’ Paterson. Paterson’s iconic 1890 poem ‘The Man From Snowy River’ turned the region’s hard-riding and fearless horsemen into legends, spawning three films, a television series, and even a live arena spectacular. It laid the groundwork for today’s extensive mythology around the brumbies, which can border on the mystical.

“I ask the House to picture this image: a beautiful stallion running wild and free, his muscles bulging with strength,” John Barilaro, the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, told Parliament in June 2015. “When he stands up on his back hooves, one is overcome by his grace and power. There is nothing quite like seeing a brumby in the wild.”

But as brumby numbers have risen, they have inflicted increasing damage on fragile alpine habitats. Today these two cultural icons — the native Australian peatlands and the introduced European horses — are fighting each other for survival. Scientists, environmentalists, and even animal welfare experts are now calling for a substantial cull of brumbies to stop the devastation these large animals are causing in the Kosciuszko National Park.

Such a decision is highly controversial. Brumby supporters say the horses are a significant part of Australia’s history, and a unique breed famed for their hardiness. It’s a view supported by the majority of New South Wales Parliament, which has just passed legislation to recognize and protect the heritage value of ‘sustainable’ wild horse populations in the national park. In his speech to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly about the bill, Barilaro — whose electorate includes the Kosciuszko National Park — made it very clear that his intention with the legislation was to put an end to any possibility of lethal control methods, such as ground or aerial shooting.

But evidence suggests that culling may be the only viable way to bring brumby numbers down to manageable levels. In 2016, the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage published a review of the previous wild horse management plan for Kosciuszko National Park. That plan, passed in 2008, relied on trapping the brumbies with lures, and then removing them from the park for domestication and re-homing. But the review found that only 583 of the 3,183 horses removed from the park since 2002 were actually re-homed. Due to a lack of demand, the other 2,600 horses were sent to a processing plant or slaughterhouse. The federal Bureau of Land Management in the United States has faced a similar challenge in trying to re-home captured mustangs — descendants of horses brought to North America by the Spanish. Rising numbers of these similarly feral horses threaten the desert ecosystems of the Western rangelands, but because their slaughter has effectively been prohibited, the Bureau itself currently cares for some 45,000 captured animals in pens and pastures, at a lifetime cost of around $50,000 each.

Earlier this year, New South Wales Deputy Premier John Barilaro introduced legislation (which was passed in June) to ban the culling of brumbies in Kosciuszko National Park.

The animal welfare implications are of considerable concern to Bidda Jones, chief science and strategy officer for the animal welfare organization RSPCA Australia. Jones calls the process “extremely traumatic.” She explains, “They’re trapped in the park, then put in a stock trailer, driven to the depot, then put on a truck and taken to another place. How many times that continues depends on where they end up.” In Australia, there are only two slaughterhouses licensed to export horse meat, both of which are more than 600 miles away from the national park.

Jones, along with Geoffrey Hope and six others, were appointed by the state environment department to an Independent Technical Reference Group in 2014 to advise the department as it drafted a new wild horse management plan. The group found that while it was difficult to pin down exact horse numbers, the evidence for their environmental harm was clear. One major concern was the impact of brumbies’ hard hooves on the banks of streams. “The banks are highly organic, and the ones there have taken thousands of years to build up,” Hope said. “I’ve got cases of streams that were formerly little narrow, deep, windy things — you could hear the water flowing, but you couldn’t see it really because the vegetation has grown over. I’ve gone back to those sites [after brumbies have been near them] and they’re five meters wide and sandy, with no banks at all.”

“They’re trapped in the park, then put in a stock trailer, driven to the depot, then put on a truck and taken to another place. How many times that continues depends on where they end up.”

The group noted research showing that in addition to compacting soils, the brumbies created gullies through the peatlands, draining them of moisture. They also increased turbidity in streams, trampled vegetation, and created manure piles acting as ‘invasion windows’ for exotic plants.

With brumby numbers now so high — estimates range anywhere from 3,000 to 14,000 — the experts concluded that culling should be included in any plan to sustainably manage them in the national park. Having considered all management options, the group — including Jones — concluded that aerial shooting of brumbies was the most humane and effective means of lethal control, particularly in the less accessible areas of the park.

But the experts were instructed by Barilaro, then the local member of Parliament but not yet the deputy premier, not to recommend aerial shooting. Aerial shooting had previously been used to cull 606 wild horses in 2000 in Guy Fawkes River National Park in northeastern New South Wales. That cull sparked public outrage, with accusations that horses were left to die with horrific injuries. A later investigation found only one horse had survived two weeks with serious gunshot wounds, but by then the public had turned against culls. The state government issued a permanent ban on aerial shooting of horses in the state of New South Wales, where Kosciuszko National Park is also located.

The Independent Technical Reference Group’s report informed the revised wild horse management plan for Kosciuszko National Park, released in draft form in May 2016, which set a target to reduce the wild horse population by more than 3,000 within five to 10 years. The management plan, which was put together by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, recommended a range of control methods, including trapping for re-homing or slaughter, fertility control, fencing … and ground-based shooting.

This final plan was scheduled to be released later that year, but was delayed and has now been superseded by the new heritage legislation, which effectively bans lethal control measures of any kind. The Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Bill passed on June 6, prompting one scientist on the NSW Threatened Species Scientific Committee — ecologist David Watson — to resign in protest. The bill has been publicly denounced by the Australian Academy of Science, the Ecological Society of Australia described it as “reckless, cruel and unachievable,” the International Union for the Conservation of Nature wrote a letter of protest, and members of the Independent Technical Reference Group issued a letter expressing its concern that the bill would “make it impossible to conserve the unique environmental values of Kosciuszko National Park.” (Barilaro’s office did not respond to requests for comment.) The NSW environment minister Gabrielle Upton’s office said the new legislation would seek “a balance between protecting the heritage values of the wild horses and the other environmental values of the Park.”

Meanwhile, Barilaro and pro-brumby groups acknowledge some brumbies need to be relocated from the more ecologically sensitive areas of Kosciuszko National Park to other areas within the park where they can be sustainably managed. They support the continued use of trapping, mustering, and rehoming to achieve this, but oppose any culling. However, there’s little detail on where those less-sensitive areas might be, and some — like ecologist Don Driscoll — argue that feral horses have no place anywhere in the national park.

“One of the key points I’ve been making is how little national park-protected areas there are in New South Wales; less than 9 percent of the land is set aside for native Australian species,” says Driscoll, a terrestrial ecologist and director of the Center for Integrative Ecology at Deakin University.

In addition to providing habitat for the Corroboree frog, Kosciuszko National Park also shelters other endangered species, including the Smoky Mouse, Raleigh Sedge, Mountain Pygmy Possum, Guthega Skink, and the Stock Galaxias fish.

“It’s a slap in the face to everybody who’s been working hard to stop these species going extinct, to have a recognized threatening process banged right on top of your last populations.”

“It’s a slap in the face to everybody who’s been working hard to stop these species going extinct, to have a recognized threatening process banged right on top of your last populations,” Driscoll says.

Despite the outrage over aerial shooting, it’s a strategy already employed in Kosciuszko National Park to control feral pigs. Across the state border in the Victoria’s Alpine National Park, shooting is used to manage feral deer. It’s also one way brumby numbers are controlled in the nearby Namadgi National Park, in the neighboring Australian Capital Territory. Finally kangaroos — a native animal so iconic that it features on the Australian national coat of arms — are widely killed by ground-based shooting. In fact, barely a week after his legislation to protect the brumbies passed Parliament, Barilaro announced an expansion in kangaroo culls in western New South Wales to aid drought-stricken farmers.

The irony is not lost on Graham Moore, a Gurrungutti man and Aboriginal liaison officer with the nearby Bega Valley Shire Council, who has worked in natural resource management for more than 30 years. “If you go to the far west, there’s kangaroo culling because there’s an impact on their crops,” Moore says. “I’ve got no problems with brumbies — they are a magnificent animal.” But, he notes, horses were introduced, not native. “If they’re culling roos, why can’t they cull and manage, with a control measure, the brumbies?”

Bianca Nogrady is a freelance science journalist and broadcaster whose work has appeared in, among other publications, Scientific American, Nature, The Guardian, and Australian Geographic.

Top visual: Christine Mendoza/Unsplash
See What Others Are Saying

1 comment / Join the Discussion

    In my view, managed populations of wild horses can and should, for many reasons, remain in the park. Brumbies are part of Australia’s history and heritage and have been in the area for over 200 years; they are part of the environmental and cultural landscape. While one could argue that Brumbies should be excluded from some highly sensitive areas, most of the land they now occupy, such as Long Plain, was cleared and used for cattle grazing long before being included in the National Park. The original Snowy Hydro Scheme was built in these areas and the new plans for hydro power will soon impact again on the land. One has to ask – why the fuss?

    Conventional conservation thinking is largely centred on invasive biology and threats to native species. But this paradigm of thinking is changing around the world.

    In November 2017 I attended the 3rd International Conference on Compassionate Conservation, hosted by the Centre for Compassionate Conservation at the University of Technology Sydney. I was finally among like-minded people who came to discuss an emerging multi-disciplinary conservation approach that was entirely congruent with my own environmental and animal welfare values.

    Among the many research threads in Compassionate Conservation is the growing evidence that many native flora and fauna do adapt to the introduction of other species and in some instances, introduced species actually help other species survive. This happens on across the spectrum of flora and fauna.

    Dr Arian Wallach of the Centre for Compassionate Conservation notes that even “The introduction of cane toads to Australia, has triggered rapid behavioral and morphological adaptation [of native species] to their toxins, enabling native predators to recover from initial declines.” (

    In the Sonoran Desert of Arizona, wild (introduced) burros dig wells in the earth which are used by at least 31 other desert species. While a PhD student at Arizona State University, Dr Erick Lundgren started noticing strange structures in the desert and commenced studying them; his video of the well digging Burros is now famous around the world (

    Dr Lundgren also made a significant observation in relation to this work: “As a field biologist, I was becoming interested in how ecologists understand and describe invasive species. I was beginning to realize that to demonize a species because it doesn’t belong may prevent us from seeing what it actually does.” ( )

    Invasive species biology disregards any benefits that introduced species bring to the environment, with research designed to reach negative conclusions regarding feral species and preserve native fauna at all costs. In so doing, inhumane consequences often result, as is a failure to understand and recognise the positive effects introduced species have on global biodiversity.

    If you take the time to read the research and advice that backs government decisions regarding wild horses in Australia (not just the media and social speculation), you will find that there are no peer reviewed research papers that claim Brumbies unequivocally and permanently damage target species in the environment. Much of the research is poorly designed, with flawed benchmark and comparative data analysis. Unsubstantiated assumptions are made and clear proof that horses are the sole impact, as opposed to other species, natural erosion, or just normal evolution etc. is lacking.

    Beyond that, control strategies for introduced species have always failed because current thinking and action, rather than helping the environment, is throwing it out of balance. Some species are declining because they are simply not adaptive to change, some because humans have destroyed habitat. We punish successful species, inhumanely shoot horses and kill our top predators, disrupting their social networks and thwarting natural population controls. And after each lethal cull, it is not long before we need another one.

    So maybe leaving horses in national parks is not such a bizarre idea. Maybe we need another, more compassionate, pragmatic and global approach to environmental concerns.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


& Tipsters

Corruption in science?
Academic discrimination?
Research censorship?
Government cover-ups?

Undark wants to hear about it.

Email us at, or visit our contact page for more secure options.