The time bomb the election campaign ignored

By MIKE GILLAM

Central Australia's buffel grass hardly got a mention in the campaign for Saturday's election which is a time bomb mirroring the experience of desert regions in the United States.

The rise of environmentalism in Arizona shares remarkable similarities with semi-arid Australia while Queensland’s obsession with buffel fed beef seems more politically aligned with Texas and possibly Mexico.

The international and multi-headed story of buffel grass is impossible to convey here. In Kenya, the Maasai and Kalenjin are fighting efforts to corporatise endemic buffel seed and in the Amazon, biodiverse rainforests are being razed to plant buffel pastures for cattle.

Soil conservation and agricultural luminaries acted impulsively and with significant zeal when they released buffel grass on US and Australian desert regions.

To say that scientists and politicians totally failed to consider the risks of exotic grasses wreaking havoc on biodiversity would be a massive understatement.

Unfortunately much of the flawed science and nonsensical marketing of the 1950s and 60s that accompanied early introductions of buffel are being quoted by today’s parliamentarians and agricultural leaders.

In 2021 the views of US restoration ecologist Perry Grissom, at Saguaro National Park were reported in National Geographic Magazine: "People who study invasive species can see a train wreck before it’s happened, so the hard part is getting other people to see that train wreck.”

Buffelgrass was introduced to the United States in the 1930s as livestock forage, and has also been used for erosion control and soil stabilization.

Experimental plantings and trials were conducted in southern Arizona from 1938 to the early 1980s.

Buffelgrass has transformed fire-resistant desert to flammable grassland.

It grows in dense stands, crowding out native plants, and negatively impacts wildlife and wildlife habitat.

It is a serious threat to the saguaro cactus.

This species also poses a serious threat to life, property, tourism, and the economy, the magazine reports.

Certainly the soil conservation officials in Central Australia were energetic in their advocacy and dispersal of this exotic grass from Alice Springs to Uluru, from Tjoritja / West MacDonnell Ranges National Park to the APY Lands.

Well before the dust control projects of the 1970s, enterprising landowners in the NT were sourcing strains of this grass from Queensland, their efforts supported and accelerated by politicians and agencies including CSIRO.

“After World War II, the Western Australian Department of Agriculture deliberately planted buffel grass, in Queensland the first plantings occurred in 1926 in Cloncurry, trials occurred in NSW in the 1920s.

Since the 1950s, buffel grass has been sown at scale across northern Australia” states the ALEC position paper Firestorm.

FROM DROVING TO TRUCKING

Seen as a saviour, buffel was first planted as a pasture grass at Murray Downs, north-east of Alice Springs in the dry year of 1951 by owner and manager B Brown and I can’t imagine much germination occurred until 1953.

Brown’s success prompted his neighbour, John Driver of Elkedra Station to follow suit.

Cattlemen were rattled with a run of drought years through until 1966, with more and more graziers turning to this “saviour” pasture grass doubtless encouraged by neighbours, agricultural scientists and seed merchants.

Some critics question why the pioneer graziers concerned with land degradation didn’t simply run fewer head of cattle or sheep as a base line and de-stock at the first sign of drought.

Compared with management practices set in motion from the 1860s it’s perhaps useful to consider technology that re-shaped pastoralism throughout inland Australia in the modern era.

Notably, the post war boom in drilling and pumping underground water created reliable surface waters which allowed graziers to access much more of their leases for grazing thereby increasing carrying capacity and profitability.

During dry years this enhanced water security increased grazier confidence and heightened the risk of running down extensive pastures to bare ground, delaying whilst exaggerating any over-stocking crisis.

Land managers who had the option to move stock onto rested “paddocks” reserved for drought events, (often mulga and mixed acacia shrublands that also provided valuable “top-feed”), could last a little longer than those who optimistically stocked properties to capacity.

Some pastoralists point to the introduction of “high” government imposed minimum stocking rates as counter-productive and more likely to encourage land degradation.

While I can’t find an actual date for this regressive policy, intuitively I doubt minimum stocking rates were effectively enforced.

Recently I’ve heard disturbing reports of some managers seeding buffel through shrublands for the express purpose of burning out the mulga to make mustering their “hidden” cattle easier!

Notwithstanding the future impacts of climate change, in the minds of some graziers, the ecological, “top feed” and shade values of mulga, has shifted from potential drought reserve and wildlife habitat to expendable nuisance within a generation!

Limited availability of surface water, the impossibility of predicting droughts and the labour intensiveness of droving stock to better pastures, the pioneer pastoralists faced many obstacles, much less problematic for today’s station managers.

I should add that a great many pastoral enterprises in the NT and SA, turbo-charged with access to groundwater, continue to function profitably with little or no buffel.

The vagaries of weather are better understood and pastoralists now have an improved ability to predict dry seasons.

Moreover, some pastoralists are entering partnerships, or “agistment” contracts providing access to multiple cattle stations and thereby spreading their risks and opportunities across different climatic zones.

When destocking is essential, cattle can be moved onto better grazing country before home pastures completely run down.

While cattle enterprises are typically much larger, road trains with three trailers and two decks can move 250 head at a time.

WEED LEGISLATION

In much the same way as the vulnerability of old growth river red gums have focussed attention on the buffel grass invasion in Centralia, the emblematic Saguaro cactus has galvanised public support for action on this botanical “plague” in the US state of Arizona.

In both the US and Central Australia, massive expansion of buffel from the 2000s galvanised a strong public response.

In the US, formation of the Sonoran Desert Weedwackers occurred at this time.

“Buffel slayers” of Catalina Park followed and in 2005 buffel grass was declared a prohibited noxious weed and regulated noxious weed in the state of Arizona.

Locally Alice Springs Landcare have been removing buffel since 2010 and the Buffel Action Network was established in 2021, taking an active lead in the successful campaign to have buffel listed as a weed in the NT.

The early 2000s were la Nina years in Centralia and buffel expanded rapidly igniting greater public concern.

Finally, in 2014 the Federal Government's Threatened Species Scientific Commission recommended all states and territories declare buffel grass a weed and act to mitigate the buffel grass threat to 70% of the Australian continent.

In 2015, South Australia acted promptly on this deeply considered advice and all other states ignored it.

Following a further decade of prevarication and wholesale environmental destruction, a public revolt finally forced the Northern Territory Government to act in 2024 and buffel grass was declared a weed, in a class yet to be determined.

It’s interesting to note that greater voting density in Darwin, the NT capital, enabled citizens to achieve a WoNS (weeds of national significance) declaration for gamba grass (another CSIRO release) in 2012!

Recently, “buffel grass, an introduced weed that is transforming desert ecosystems across Australia, has been nominated for recognition as a Weed of National Significance (WoNS) submitted by the Indigenous Desert Alliance (IDA), in partnership with the Alinytjara Wiluṟara Landscape Board (AWLB) and the Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC).

The nomination included support from 48 organisations, and an open letter signed by 83 organisations from every mainland state and the Northern Territory.

“Declaring buffel grass a Weed of National Significance would support national efforts to protect our environment”, the nomination goes on to state.

Seriously, take action NOW!

RESEARCH FROM THE CENTRE

Long-term resident of Alice Springs and eminent arid zone ecologist Associate Professor Christine Schlesinger of Charles Darwin University, began researching the ecological impacts of buffel grass in the mid 2000s disturbed at its rapid spread through rivers and flood plains following large rains in 2000.

Partnering with the NT Parks and Wildlife and the Desert Park she tested benefits of buffel grass management and recovery of native plant communities on diverse groups of native fauna.

The sites were maintained and research conducted for over a decade.

She has gone on to publish more than 10 papers on the impacts of buffel grass, many originating from this pioneering work.

The importance of fire in the story of buffel impact became increasingly evident.

A critically important field note published in 2021 by Associate Professor Schlesinger and Dr Erin Westerhuis gave a grim analysis of the impact of buffel fuelled wildfires on old growth trees.

“Large old trees are keystone structures of terrestrial ecosystems that provide unique habitat resources for wildlife.

Here we report on the impact of a single wildfire on large river red gums arid riparian woodland invaded by buffel.

“In 2018, 266 trees with more than 80cm equivalent trunk diameter were mapped at six sites to provide a pre-fire baseline.

Within a year the sites were impacted by a large wildfire that burnt an area of 660 square kilometres in 15 days.

"Sites were resurveyed in 2019 to assess the fate of the trees. 54% of the trees exposed to the fire were destroyed and the remainder lost on average 79% of their canopy.”

Dr Schlesinger and Westerhius said the increased frequency, intensity and extent of wildfire promoted by introduced grasses is one of the most serious threats to biodiversity in arid ecosystems. 

"Buffel grass is a serious invader of desert ecosystems worldwide.

It promotes more frequent and intense fire episodes, potentially threatening the persistence of large trees.

Their widespread decline, globally and in Australia, has serious implications for biodiversity and ecosystem integrity.”

In September 2023 buffel grass made headlines around the world: “Invasive buffel grass that helped fuel deadly Maui fires [is] also threatening Australia.

“The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has recognised buffel grass’s potential to completely take over arid ecosystems, forcing out native plant and animal species.

"Buffel grass is a threat to remote Indigenous communities in Australia because it causes heightened fire risk, damage to cultural sites, and a reduction in the ability to pass on cultural knowledge to the next generation.

“A key ingredient in the deadly Maui fires, unmanaged invasive grasses, like buffel grass, is also spreading throughout vast areas of Australia, prompting a warning about the increased risk to people, houses and biodiversity on this side of the globe.

"In August 2023, the spread of non-native grasses in Hawaii was put under the microscope, when the island of Maui ignited in one of the deadliest fires in US history.

The death toll stands at 97 people, with 31 still missing.”

The IPBES is the global science-policy body tasked with providing the best-available evidence to decision-makers about biodiversity.

With invasive alien species identified as a major driver of biodiversity loss, this new report examines the impact and drivers of invasive animal and plant species and offers policy options for effective management.

Developed over more than four years, the report was prepared by 86 international experts from 49 countries, drawing on more than 13,000 scientific articles, government reports, and Indigenous and local knowledge.

The weed was a factor in recent uncontrolled fires around Alice Springs, as well as the devastating wildfires on Maui, Hawaii, in August.

The IPBES’s Assessment Report on Invasive Alien Species and their Control has been welcomed by the South Australian Government and the Alinytjara Wilurara Landscape Board (AWLB), which has led the fight against buffel grass in remote parts of the state for more than a decade.

The 2023 fires in Hawaii should alert all who live within the new buffel grass savannahs to pay close attention to the unfolding tragedy that is engulfing inland Australia.

Buffel grass fires are extremely dangerous, an indisputable fact that should be gaining urgent attention from the insurance industry.

In my travels I strongly advise everyone travelling on outback roads to consult the NAFI website every time they contemplate a road trip.

True to form it will take actual human tragedy to gain political attention.

The loss of familiar and cherished landscapes causes immense grief and dislocation in remote communities.

In practical terms the buffel grass invasion rapidly overwhelms edible native plants and animals thereby making people less food secure, more dependent and arguably less healthy.

Nowhere is this more apparent than the Anangu Pitjantjatjarra Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands extensively ravaged by buffel grass.

Release of Anangu leader Rene Kulitja’s statement on buffel grass and the Umuwa statement were pivotal moments in the broadly based public campaign to have buffel grass listed as a weed in the Northern Territory.

INDUSTRY FUNDING MISDIRECTED

The natural environment is being destroyed by political indifference, while a buffel promoting industry receives generous federal funds to prop up this discredited grazing status quo.

The Federal Government matches, on a dollar for dollar basis, funds raised through producer levies etc.

There is also a significant unmatched grant: The Rural Research and Development (R&D) for Profit program boosts funding to the rural research and development corporations (RDCs) for nationally coordinated, strategic research that delivers real outcomes for Australian producers.

Total funding for the program is $157 million over eight years.

All projects will be completed by June 2023.

Unfortunately this funding was not used to address the concerns of landowners who might oppose reliance on buffel grass and wish to control this weed and/or spread their risks to foster and manage native pastures in total or part.

While Big Ag in Queensland have marshalled significant resources to attack the exotic pasture mealy bug, Heliococcus summervillei, the benefits for spreading mealy bugs throughout the inland almost certainly outweighs the risks.

Our ecological assets, particularly old growth trees are disappearing at an alarming rate while Ministers for the Environment remain mute.

In light of this massive taxpayer funded support, it beggars belief that Agforce Queensland offers up the churlish headline “Buffel Feeds Australia—Bureaucracy Starves It”.

I’m very concerned the Government and pastoralists are swallowing misinformation, fear-mongering and outdated science by industry.

Change is inevitable but industry efforts to endlessly delay action on buffel grass control will result in irreversible damage to biodiversity across some 70% of the continent and ultimately increase costs of remediation.

An industry that is facing inevitable pasture run-down should be looking to the future instead of harking back to beef production that came at such an unconscionable cost to the natural environment.

INDUSTRY JINGOISM SIDE-STEPS SCIENCE

On 11 March 2025, Lloyd Hick, AgForce Cattle Board President made the following alarmist claims while ignoring the immense impact of buffel grass on the natural environment: “The push to list it as a Weed of National Significance (WoNS) would have severe consequences for Queensland’s beef industry and broader agriculture.

If listed, buffel could face legislative restrictions, removal requirements, and even biological control research aimed at eradicating it.

“Buffel is not a weed.

It is the backbone of Queensland’s grazing systems.

It sustains the production of millions of kilograms of beef that underpin domestic and international food security.

“Restricting seed supply would undermine pasture regeneration, and any move towards biological control would be catastrophic for entire grazing regions.

Buffel grass is not up for sacrifice.”

At a Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association conference in Darwin earlier this year, President Garry Edwards chimed in: “Campaigns by environmental groups to declare buffel grass a weed of national significance … ignored the vital contribution the grass had made to the economic viability and sustainable profitability of regional and rural Australia.

“In fact, I think we should nominate buffel grass for an Order of Australia medal for its sustainable long-term enhancement and efforts in contributing the profitability of regional Australia,” he said, sparking applause and cheers from the conference audience.

“As a multi-billion-dollar industry with 52,000 plus levy payers and supporting 430,000 jobs the beef cattle sector was the largest single economic contributor of Australian primary industry outside mining.

“It’s about time we understood that we are the 50,000-pound gorilla in the room that just hasn’t been woken up.”

Note: NT agriculture (pastoralism, forestry, fishery and horticulture) in 2021/02 contributed $805m, employed fewer than 2,000 people and contributed 2.8% to the NT Gross State Product (GSP).

Pastoralism occupies approximately 54% of the country.

DISCUSSION

In the rangelands of inland Australia, pastoralism was profitable before buffel and much more so after a massive programme of drilling to provide artesian water flows for livestock.

It's nonsense to suggest the entire industry is not viable without it and plenty of evidence to suggest that pasture rundown is occurring and will likely prove disastrous in buffel grass monocultures of the future.

Clearly much of the fear mongering by industry lobbyists is disingenuous.

It seems highly likely that buffel enamoured graziers will always be granted access to genetically engineered, fertiliser encrusted seed for refreshing pastures suffering from dieback from future Governments that routinely side with business over biodiversity.

However there must be industry accountability for the spread of buffel onto land that is managed by communities being crushed by the extreme and dire threat to their land and livelihoods.

While I’ve had honest conversations with pastoralists who have serious misgivings about the buffel invasion, they are very shy about going on the record.

Given the extremist posturing of advocacy organisations, it’s perfectly understandable that individuals don’t want to challenge the industry status quo.

Primary industries are not always open to diverse views and industry lobbyists on the issue of buffel seem to advocate a closed shop, akin to an “all-in” to fight the indefensible realities of this environmental apocalypse.

I believe this is a huge mistake and risks reputational damage to so many primary producers and stake-holders who do rely on the empathy and understanding of the nation in times of great hardship such as drought, flood or tariffs.

Generational change on the land can’t come fast enough.

An industry that wilfully and unapologetically asserts its profit motivations over and above the viability of the natural environment across 70% of the Australian landmass is treating its customers with contempt.

Sadly at this moment the beef cattle industry does not appear to welcome dissent or informed debate from within, instead harking back to frontier style posturing about size and economic importance and its right to conquer nature.

Polarisation through misinformation is the name of the game but it doesn’t have to be.

Readers may well ask why the Federal Government meekly failed to act on expert advice delivered by the Threatened Species Scientific Commission in 2014 and why all levels of Government continued to do nothing from 2021 when “ecosystem collapse” was finally reported by a Federal agency?

Why does it take an angry demand from the general public to list buffel as a weed of national significance before our Federal Government chooses to act in the interests of the natural environment?

Uncaring or out of touch, either way the political duopoly in this country has little credibility on the core issues of protecting the natural environment.

Throughout the past decade of wanton neglect by Federal, State and Territory Governments, the buffel grass plague swallowed up vast areas of country annihilating biota and cultural sites and threatening lucrative, sustainable tourism and art industries across the inland.

Government’s failure to respond with urgency is increasing the difficulty and future costs of acting on the management of this highly virulent weed.

Truly, this is one of the environmental scandals of the century.

The clock is still ticking and precious little action is being taken while we now wait for the current “weed of national significance” review.

Why are we still waiting?

Buffel grass threatens at least 70% of the Australian continent and an unknown number of plants and animals already struggling with the impacts of climate change.

At the last Federal election in 2022 the federal Government pledged $9.8 million ($12m, adjusted for inflation) to attack gamba grass in northern Australia and the actions of the Top End’s Gamba army are now endlessly celebrated by politicians.

Do Australia’s arid and semi-arid regions represent a less important sacrifice zone; a sparsely populated region of low commercial value and too few votes?

At a recent candidates forum for Saturday’s election, Federal MP and Labor candidate Marion Scrymgour was asked if she would support a $12m fund to address buffel grass invasion, to match her government’s pledge at the last election to fund gamba grass control in the north.

I should note that conservative candidates did not expose themselves to public scrutiny at this forum.

Coy about funding promises, Scrymgour clearly recognises the glaring political disparities and she did hint at a major programme to fund Indigenous rangers.

In response, Greens candidate Aia Newport won a lot of hearts when she boldly declared: “I can commit the Greens to $12m of funding.

Nationally the Greens have announced a policy intention of spending 1% of the federal budget on the natural environment!”

When I began writing about the buffel grass apocalypse and the loss of old growth red gums in 2011/2012, interest from the media seemed low given the obvious consequences of this genetically variable and hybridising weed.

Mixed messages from leaders promoting spurious narratives about soil conservation and championing the grazing values of buffel didn’t help.

I was chided on occasion for the unforgiving tenor of my language but it remains my belief that the time for politeness is well and truly over.

Five years on, I am heartened by the number of articles that are appearing nationally and the strident, urgent and unequivocal language used by reporters.

A Federal Government election is underway and it seems shocking that buffel has not yet become the subject of major scientific funding and interventions.

A recent article provides a continental overview and startling reports that buffel grass is now threatening nesting marine turtles and shore-birds in WA.

BEFORE AND AFTER BUFFEL

Hopefully, most of the country has moved on from the position of ignorance and barbarism that reigned in Queensland’s parliament in the 1880s but the issue of buffel grass reveals that scientific and political dissembling runs deep in some quarters.

“The Queensland Marsupials Destruction Act in 1877 aimed to “facilitate and encourage the destruction of marsupial animals” and its rationale was given as, “part of the country which had hitherto, supported large flocks (of sheep) and herds (of cattle), but which was rapidly becoming a desert waste from the effects of the marsupial pests” (Queensland Legislative Assembly 1881: p.1374.)

I worry that some politicians might swallow the extreme and unbalanced position of vested interests.

From Agforce Qld and the NT Cattlemen's Association to independent Senator Katter, commentators seem to suggest the grazing status quo is more important than the building blocks of ecosystems.

The very future and integrity of nature throughout inland Australia (and for that matter industry and communities) is callously ignored.

Is this about profitability or fear of change because change is coming to those who rely on a pathogen prone monoculture and dismiss the heightened risks of fire?

Farming groups and politicians have come together trying to put buffel grass on the agenda ahead of the Federal election.

In the buffel grass pastures of NSW and Qld, the Federal Government throws hundreds of millions of dollars of public money supporting agriculture, specifically fighting buffel grass dieback and pasture rundown.

Government biosecurity assets join the fray to eradicate a mealy bug that might just offer real hope to inland Australian ecosystems.

In every direction the collapsing natural order receives no meaningful funding or research commitment from our leaders at a federal level.

A temporary and hollow triumph for business at the overwhelming expense of biodiversity and environmental resilience.

I try not to criticise without offering alternatives.

I know that some pastoralists have grave misgivings about the buffel plague that is sweeping unchecked across inland Australia.

I know they are not only concerned about their own properties but are also shocked by the reality of buffel infestation across the continent, a tragic situation that imposes unaffordable costs on the managers of national parks and custodians of sacred sites and traditional lands.

This nation needs to offer much, much more than a subsidised grassland savannah for cattle.

I appreciate that some, possibly many, land management businesses do assume the role of empathetic stewards of the Australian bush.

Are pastoral lobby groups ignoring this silenced group by expecting all their members to embrace the default slogans and intransigence of opposition?

I have a simple suggestion.

Take the huge amount of public money that is routinely spent on agricultural research, ostensibly to maintain the failing status quo of buffel grass pastures in Queensland and re-direct this to support graziers who wish to de-couple from buffel and protect or restore native rangeland pastures.

The future focus of agricultural science should be redirected to promote biological and other control solutions directed at buffel grass to spearhead the defence of those lands where buffel and high fire risks are definitely not wanted.

Graziers who want to maintain their existing buffel pastures should be prevented from wilfully releasing this invasive weed where it does not already exist.

The science and the solutions for maintaining and enhancing sick buffel pastures, addressing buffel rundown and controlling pests are surely well understood by now.

I’m not a believer in corporate welfare, dressed up as science.

If business is genuinely acting also in the broader public interest then they can lay legitimate claim to public support including funding.

SLOGANS VERSUS SCIENCE AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Society cannot politely wait for buffel grass supported business models to collapse under their own vulnerabilities; pasture rundown, fire-storms, rising costs of “natural” disasters, insurance and banking costs, pathogens and oxalate poisoning etc.

Patience and politeness is not an option.

Simply put, unmitigated continuance of this industry’s promotion of buffel will destroy biodiversity on its way down.

Immense collateral damage will destroy rural communities, national parks and agriculture.

Businesses and industries, peopled by those who can’t prevent this destruction, including the many graziers who are unwilling passengers in this nightmare, will fail.

Agforce Queensland is an industry lobby group that has recently attacked proposals to declare buffel grass a weed of national significance.

“Buffel Feeds Australia – Bureaucracy Starves It” – the Agforce rant continues at length and may explain why inland Australia is treated as a sacrifice zone by our Federal Government.

On biodiversity, the devastating impacts of buffel are accelerating while the minimalist political response can only be described as obscene.

A lobby group that does not encourage a diversity of views lacks the ability to test the veracity and relevance of its own leadership, decision making and membership representation.

I also wonder about the ethical, legal and insurance liabilities of a business that allows its weeds to spread to those who don’t want it and are forced to shoulder the massive responsibility, the trauma and financial burden of its removal.

Kennedy MP Bob Katter recently urged the Government to abandon the proposed WoNS listing.

“Buffel grass … holds the soil together and keeps the cattle fed even during drought.

The Gulf and Peninsula were built on buffel, Brahman, and bitumen.

Buffel grass is essential to the northern cattle industry, and to label it as a weed would be turning all of the North into a weed-infested dust bowl.”

While I’d remind Bob that buffel grass is in fact a highly invasive weed by any measure, yet I must bow to his natural proclivity for alliteration and respond in kind.

Dear Albo’s mates, Marion Scrymgour, Tanya Plibersek and Buffel Bob: Bullshit bravado and bovine bastardry are burning, bleeding and butchering biodiversity.

Banish buffel from the great Australian bush before we lose the beauty, the bounty and ultimately ourselves.

To ignore this scientifically proven environmental catastrophe, to show contempt for the nation’s biodiversity crisis, to overlook the challenges of climate change is a sure fire way of harming the beef industry and the public image of graziers.

I can thoroughly recommend triple bottom line theory to politicians and the next generation of leaders with apologies to those who implemented these concepts in spirit generations ago.

“The triple bottom line (TBL) theory is a business framework that emphasizes the importance of measuring social, environmental, and economic impacts alongside traditional financial performance.

"It encourages companies to focus on three key areas, often referred to as the "three Ps: people, planet, and profit.

"By adopting this approach, businesses can enhance their sustainability practices, improve stakeholder relations, and achieve long-term profitability.

"The TBL theory posits that organizations should not only aim for profit but also consider their broader impact on society and the environment.” Harvard Business School.

The Alice Springs News has asked the Cattlemen's Association of the Northern Territory to comment.

PHOTOS from top: Screen shot from Indigenous Desert Alliance video buffel free.

Uluru buffel controlling contractors and parks staff.

Buffel at Kalka in the APY Lands.

A tree in Charles Creek damaged in a buffel fire.

Saguaros campaign in Arizona.

Member for Lingiari Marion Scrymgour election poster surrounded by buffel – as are lots of others as the weed dominates many roadsides.

This is the ninth essay I’ve written specifically on buffel grass and I apologise to readers for torturing them with this issue in the Alice Springs News since 2012.

Will I ever eat beef again? Mike Gillam.