사법 · Yuraygir horse cullBrumby culling court: Yuraygir challenge dismissed, removal method left to park managers작성 2026년 10월 30일 오전 5:26 UTC시청방송 전문0:07A judge has rejected Carmen Jackson's bid to stop aerial horse culling in Urriger.0:11Park managers retain discretion over how to remove the feral horses, and the park's0:15management plan requires their removal.0:17The dispute turns on how much authority that word, removal, gives the people0:21managing the park.0:22Eurager National Park is in New South Wales.0:25The proposed aerial operation focused on the mini water area of the Clarence Valley.0:29Jackson took the National Parks and Wildlife Service to court to prevent horses0:32there from being shot from the air.0:34Justice Rachel Pepper dismissed the challenge in the New South Wales Land and0:37Environment Court on October30,2026 .0:39She found Jackson hadn't provided enough evidence to prove aerial culling breached0:43the National Parks and Wildlife Act.0:45Jackson's argument centered on the park management plan's use of the word removal to0:49describe what should happen to the Brumbies.0:51Jackson had to show that the official who authorized removing and killing the horses0:54had acted unlawfully.0:55Pepper applied the civil standard of proof, meaning Jackson had to show that was0:59more likely than not.1:00Pepper found she hadn't met that burden.1:02Jackson said the service lacked the statutory authority or legal power.1:06To carry out aerial culling in the park.1:08During the September hearing, the government argued that remove was a very broad1:12word and didn't exclude killing.1:13Pepper found the plan required the removal of feral horses, while the way managers1:17did that was an operational matter.1:19Pepper found the secretary had broad discretion to remove or eradicate feral horses.1:23She also said the secretary was authorized, if not required, to remove horses from1:27the park.1:28Her reasoning leaves the choice of removal method with park managers.1:31The word removal therefore didn't give Jackson the restriction on aerial killing she1:35was seeking.1:35The court rejected her argument that the plan prevented managers from using that1:39method.1:39Pepper appeared in court for only a few minutes, said the judgment would be1:43published, and stood the court down.1:45Jackson's urgent application reached court at one a.1:48m.1:48On August twenty-four, a two week suspension followed on August twenty-five.1:53Shooting had been proposed for August twenty-six to twenty-eight.1:56The case was awaiting a decision on September nine, before the October thirty2:00dismissal.2:00Those August dates described the planned operation.2:03They don't tell us that shooting took place.2:05The two-week pause belongs to the earlier stage of the case.2:08The dismissal is the later development, replacing the period when Jackson and park2:12managers were waiting for Pepper's decision.2:14The pest management plan changed after Jackson filed her initial injunction2:18application.2:19Before an October one hearing, it expressly included aerial culling and strengthened2:22its pest control language.2:24Pepper's reasoning about the duty to remove horses concerned the separate plan of2:28management.2:28The service can update pest management plans without ministerial approval, so that2:33amendment didn't need a minister's sign.2:35Off.2:35The two documents do different jobs in this case.2:38One supplied the removal obligation considered by the judge.2:41The other was updated to include aerial culling among the available pest control2:45methods.2:46Jackson has lost this legal route to preventing aerial killing in Eurager.2:50Park managers still have the removal obligation.2:52With the method left to operational discretion, the ruling resolves this challenge2:56within this park's management framework.2:58The dismissal alone doesn't tell us that an aerial cull has resumed.3:01When the National Parks and Wildlife Service will act on that authority, and on what3:05announced terms, still isn't clear.기사 읽기스토리 타임라인HeyDex
