LANDHOLDERS who have been holding the tick-line at bay in the south Burnett say they will take a class action against the government if it moves the line south.
Members of the Kingaroy Wondai Proston Tick Eradication Committee, formed over 20 years ago, feel they have been fighting a losing battle with a steady incursion of ticks.
Chairman Graeme Wicks said there was a proposal to move the line further south, which currently has three zones, including a control zone between tick and tick-free country.
“Our committee would like to have a face-to-face meeting with the hierarchy of the Department of Agriculture to let the feelings of the bulk of our members be known,” Mr Wicks said.
“As far as we are concerned, they are getting very poor advice as they are proposing to let the tick line go.
“There is already talk of class action should the line be receded.”
South Burnett landholders have been calling for more regulation to give more capacity to enforce the tick-free zone. If there is a tick infection in the tick-free zone, biosecurity is there to enforce the zone.
“There needs to be some kind of resource to maintain the line. The fellows with straddle properties need to have some concession,” Mr Wicks said.
The region went through a period of reduced resources on the ground to support people and then where was not the regulation to enforce the cattle tick-free area.
“You have no management,” Mr Wicks said.
“People blame neighbours for not doing the job properly and they aren’t, but the issue is who is overseeing the management of the whole systems – and that’s DAF.”
In June, Meat and Livestock Australia listed 27 diseases that had the greatest economic impact on the Australian beef industry, and ticks came in at number one.
At an estimated annual cost of $161 million a year, the impacts are felt through tick fever, anaemia and lack of weight gain due to infestations, damaged hides, and the cost of chemicals for treatment.
“It defies logic that the industry knows what the problem is and does nothing about it,” Mr Wicks said.
“We’ve been told time and again we are not going to get more resources thrown at the issue, so it’s a matter of the few we have here of enforcing the Stock Act.
“If there were a couple of prosecutions against those who have been flouting the law for years, then people would sit up and notice.”
Fired up is fellow member Joe Jessen, Tingoora, who has seen his once tick-free paddocks become infested for the first time this January – a mystery considering he brings no cattle in, he has a road at the front and forestry at the back.
“Where do they come from? Do they drop from the sky?” he asked, sarcastically.
In several months, he has spent $6000 on chemical, despite running just 600 cattle.
“At least it keeps your taxable income down to bugger all. It costs about $400 to treat every three weeks – and then on top of that you have movement restrictions and then withholding periods.”
His land straddles both tick and tick-free country, and since last month he is no longer allowed to treat his cattle in order to move between paddocks.
Now, he has to load his cattle and truck them 17.5 kilometres to Wondai, where there is an approved clearing dip.
“I could use my dip one day and now I can’t,” he said, having received a letter from DAF outlining the change.
“A lot of people are going to say, stuff it, especially if it is just moving cattle from one paddock to another,” Mr Jessen said.
He is not the only one affected.
Mr Wicks is also concerned and the new move, and said people would either continue to treat their cattle and move them into tick-free paddocks and some may not treat their cattle at all.
A Biosecurity Queensland spokesperson said it had implemented a policy of producers presenting stock at approved clearing stations.
“This frees up resources for Biosecurity Queensland to monitor the compliance of approved cattle tick eradication programs and ensure producers are meeting their legislative obligations,” he said.
The spokesperson said this did not generally apply to movements within a property made up of adjoining land.
“When stock is moved between properties of the same owner and which are not physically connected there are exemptions that may apply," he said.
“For example, stock can be moved from an ‘at risk high’ property to an infected property, or an ‘at risk low’ property to an ‘at risk high’ or infected property.”
The reverse movements are not allowed, he said.
