The previous post on this proposal was missing the Ordinary Resolution to accompany the plan:
Animal Management Plan for Two Sheep, Aliya and Crow Tribe.docx
- Comment
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Goolawah Co-op Members 
Not in Favour of this proposal for the following Reasons:
1. Not sustainable – insufficient grazing area available due to existing human infrastructure and gardens. Introducing invasive grasses to feed them is not ok. Soil impact in wet conditions. When using animals as part of a permaculture system you need to have the right animals used in the right way for the area in question.
2. Animal Welfare Concerns – Being brought around on leads, gps collared, locked up, confined to small area is not in keeping with sheep natural behaviour and preferences
3. Impact on Native Animals – Habitat fragmentation and disruption in ability to move due to fencing, displacement from areas they could graze on. More sacrifices required from the native fauna to accommodate humans desires. Three kangaroos eat as much vegetation as two sheep, they are already present and offer fertiliser for the land. Crow described kangaroo as vermin in a signal message, which is a concern. The native animals are residents too. We need to consider impacts on them.
4. Consideration of Neighbouring residents who do not want the sheep. Plan omitted their concerns and responses. Poor record of being cooperative in resolving neighbours concerns with introduced animals, requiring escalation to meetings and beyond – i.e. the rooster noise issue.
5. Creating exemptions to bylaws for some members is a worrying precedent, it erodes community equality and undermines the strength of our bylaws. If one member is approved for an introduced animal then others can seek the same and should be granted it in the interests of equality. Dealing with these type of exemption proposals takes time and energy for the community as demonstrated by the mass Signal message campaign over this proposal. This opens a door to more requests for exemptions, and it is a door that is difficult to close as “precedent” will then be cited as a rationale for those who want the next exception. I am looking forward to my indoor therapy cat.
Introduced animals are turning out to be frequent source of friction, frustration and consumption of community energy and meeting time. We have had it all from roosters to cats, ferrets, rabbits, uncontained guinea fowl, horses, dogs and now sheep. We are weary from it and wonder when will people have enough. Members could just live here quietly and respect the integrity and rational for our long standing bylaws rather than seeking exemptions or trying to re-defining bylaws in create ways to get what they want. Many members love Goolawah for the very reason that priority is given to our wildlife over introduced species and the minimal fencing on the property as a result.
Keep Goolawah Wild. Bumper sticker anyone?
Twenty-five years ago, the Goolawah community made a bold decision—one that would change the land forever. They removed the cows, banned cats, dogs, guns, and hooves, and set the land on a path of healing. It wasn’t just about removing animals; it was about giving the land the space to regenerate, to heal from over a century of damage. Over time, kangaroos, koalas, bandicoots, and a rich variety of birds, plants, and fungi returned, creating a thriving ecosystem that defies the ongoing extinction crisis in Australia.
This wasn’t just a victory for nature, but a statement that there’s hope for the land, even when the damage feels irreversible. And so, the question arises—why risk that progress? Colonisation, as Indigenous people remind us, didn’t end over 200 years ago. It continues, every day, in small and big ways. Ironically, it all began with sheep—brought to Australia by European settlers, competing with native wildlife, especially kangaroos, for food and water, and setting the stage for ecological imbalance. The very thing that started the disruption in the first place could now threaten the delicate balance that Goolawah is working so hard to restore.
We have set up our homes here as well; to bring up kids, feed ourselves, share our lives and enjoy the nature that surrounds us in a cooperative way. We had time to check out the community, the land, the rules, the opportunities and the of what life would be like to live on 1 or 2 acres surrounded by 1400 acres of forests. We agreed to become a member and bought into a low-cost way of life. But it had its limitations. So, whilst some of us have chickens, rabbits, veggie patches and other small enterprises on our little patch, we are contained within the larger ecosystem that has its own needs to thrive. Often our Eurocentric/ colonial outlook is at odds with what this.
Permaculture offers us a glimpse into a world where humans work with the land, not against it. Before 1788, Australia was perhaps the best example of this—a landscape carefully managed by First Nations peoples, using methods that provided food, shelter, medicine, and culture in harmony with the land. The beauty of permaculture is that it’s not prescriptive; it’s a set of principles that adapt to the needs of each specific place. The land speaks; we listen. And here, sheep don’t belong. They can disrupt the ecosystem, harm biodiversity, and damage soil health. They need more than what the land can offer, and their presence would require many interventions that would undermine the potential benefits. Kangaroos already offer equivalent manure for compost and there are electric mowers available to alleviate fossil fuel use.
But it’s not just about the sheep; it’s about the choices we make today. The exception to the by-law was made based on the last major floods when cows couldn’t get to high ground and some died. Concerned members suggested our property be a refuge in future events. So, it was to be a time-limited measure, done in the name of animal welfare. But there’s a concern: if we allow more exceptions, if we let sheep in for grazing or composting, what happens next? What’s to stop others from requesting similar exceptions? Once we open that door, it’s hard to close it again. The conservation work done at Goolawah could be undermined, and the community’s hard-won reputation could be at risk.
Then there’s the matter of sheep’s welfare. They don’t thrive in the wet, swampy conditions of Goolawah. They’re prone to foot rot, flystrike, and other diseases. And in a land where dingoes roam, they’re vulnerable to predators. If the grass dries up, would there even be enough feed to sustain them? This is why you rarely see them in our local area.
A trial might seem like a reasonable step, but who determines what success looks like? What if it impacts the local ecology in unexpected ways? What if it harms the community’s conservation efforts and funding opportunities for projects like koala protection? These aren’t questions we can afford to ignore. The lessons from Goolawah’s past—the ongoing restoration of the land, the work done to bring it back to life—should guide us in the decisions we make for its future. It’s about finding balance and working with nature, not pushing it to the breaking point. And in this story, that means saying no to the sheep, and yes to the land.
Thanks
Jac
You don’t need animals to successfully practice permaculture.
When you live in a community it’s best to not annoy your neighbours.
Just another reminder. We are not voting on an ISMP (because you cannot have an ISMP for an animal that is PROHIBITED on Goolawah). The ISMP-Form was purely supplied and used as a rationale and to give background for the Ordinary Resolution.
We will be voting about an Ordinary Resolution to allow an exception to By-law 7 because Aliya and Crow want to have sheep.
Thanks Aliya and Crow for giving us the opportunity to respond to your proposal for Sheep in the Outback.
It is also good to understand your plans in respect to a stockyard bordering our site. I can confirm that No neighbours have responded positively to the proposal for Sheep on your site.
We applaud your vision to be self sufficient through animal husbandry but it is unfortunate the difference between these ideals and Goolawah’s vision are not aligned.
I would hope that our voices are heard and given greater weight in these circumstances due to proximity of the animals to us.
Hi Aliya and Crow,
Thanks for creating the opportunity for discussion before the GM. I’ve read your document carefully, and can see that you’ve give this a lot of thought, and articulated your beliefs clearly, so I’m not asking you to restate what you’ve already said. But there are two issues that I wanted to seek clarification on.
1. The email you produced includes a resolution that mentions “ … approved to keep two sheep on their 2.5 acre site within Goolawah, for the purposes of rotational grazing”. This sounds like the sheep will be kept within the confines of your two lots. But other sentences in your AMP doc, like “Members will be consulted about grazing zones and practices” could be interpreted to suggest that you may be intending to graze sheep on community land or other members’ sites. Could you be really clear about whether your plan is to have these two sheep on just your own two lots?
2. Throughout Goolawah’s history, we’ve always prioritised how any member’s proposal impacts their neighbours, so for example we’ve built neighbourly approval into the planting of shade-throwing trees, and ISMPs, etc. Your email and AMP docs don’t specifically mention neighbours’ attitudes, but I have heard a rumour that you consulted all your neighbours and that they all said ‘no’ because of perceived negative impacts on them. Can you confirm if that is true? The reason this is important to me, is that it would be easy for me as a unaffected person living on the other side of the community to simply say ‘Sure, why not, let them have a go at keeping sheep’, but if a ‘yes’ vote for two members went directly against the expressed interests of many other neighbour members, then I couldn’t feel comfortable with my vote causing them suffering. Can you be clear about how your neighbours responded, and how you think any ‘yes’ vote against their wishes would affect community harmony, and especially hamlet harmony?
Thanks again for your willingness to discuss these questions.
Cheers
Nick
Aliya, in reference to the form available online your ISMP does not include ‘item 8 – noise & impact on others’, as well as the first part which is important for transparency.
I appreciate that you sent some information to the Outback group regarding expected noise, but I’m requesting that your strategy for dealing with animal noise (especially at night) be formally outlined in your proposed ISMP for two reasons.
Firstly, the whole community needs this information in order to make a well-informed decision and secondly, it is an important element that would be used to measure the effectiveness of your plan (and accountability), if it were approved.
It appears there are a few steps prior to the community voting on the ISMP but thank you for your attention to this,
Gerard
Hello Gerard,
As we are now within 21 days of the next GM, I understand that changes to the ISMP cannot be made at this stage.
That said, we are planning to build an enclosed stable adjacent to Wayne and Jenny’s site. The enclosure will help manage sound levels at night (if any) and ensure the animals are protected from predators.
We would have appreciated it if members with concerns had remained in the Goolawah chat group or joined the specific group i created to discuss any concerns or issues. It could have aslo been mentioned earlier in the outback chat when I first reached out regarding possible sound concerns in the beginning of January.
Most of the community, as referenced in your inquiry, have remained active in the chat group, and their concerns were vocalised either there or in private messages and have been addressed to the best of our ability.
To support our proposal, you can look at the additional scientific information regarding noise levels and details about the sound of sheep. Also good to note that the noise level recorded was of 11 sheep, and in an abattoir lairages, where animals are highly stressed.
Scientifically sheep are very quiet, and will only vocalise during feeding or if startled, if at all.
Regards,
Aliya
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19749207/
Abstract
Levels of sound intensity were measured over periods of 24 hours in 34 abattoir lairages in England and Wales. The mean integrated range in 12 cattle lairages was 52 to 79 dB(A), in 11 sheep lairages, 45 to 76 dB(A) and in 11 pig lairages, 46 to 87 dB(A). In general, the pig lairages were the noisiest, with spot peak recordings of up to 110 dB(A). Typically, the sound intensities in all the lairages were 10 to 20 dB(A) higher during the working day than at night. In many sheep lairages, high intensities of sound were recorded frequently throughout the night, but others were very quiet, below 40 dB(A). Vocalisations were the major sources of noise in the pig and cattle lairages, but there were variations between them. There were high intensities of sound from handling systems (80 to 90 dB[A]), and ventilating fans (70 to 80 dB[A]).
Aliya,
I don’t believe my concerns are best addressed on a signal group. On the 11th of January you created a group and sent information to the Outbackers regarding your proposal. A representative from every site in the Outback (except Sainttina’s whose response I am not aware of) responded that they DO NOT support your proposal. Your proposal was submitted online a week later with this information not disclosed in your ISMP. My original comment here was an invitation for you to acknowledge this as we head towards making a decision as a community. Regarding noise, your article link suggesting that animals heading for slaughter do not make significant noise does not in my opinion negate the need to include a noise management strategy in your proposal. A simple online search of “are sheep noisy” suggests that in many cases, they certainly can be. What I asked for is that your plan formally outline your strategy for preventing and managing noise – should it arise. If changes cannot be made after your submission date then your ISMP remains incomplete, and that is problematic if seeking approval from the community.
Hi Gerard,
I appreciate you taking the time to outline your concerns. I understand that the Outbackers expressed opposition to my proposal in the Signal group, and while I took that into account, I proceeded with my submission based on the formal process. If the noise factor is a key consideration that could influence opinions, Im open to adjusting my proposal to address it. However, any changes at this stage would mean the vote would need to be postponed until the next GM rather than going through this one.
That said, Im happy to discuss what a noise management strategy might look like if that would make a meaningful difference to the Outbackers stance.
Aliya
Agree with Julica – the first step is asking the community to allow cloven-hoofed animals.
We do have an ISMP on the website under forms which asks if neighbours have been consulted and agree to the plan, with 10 points to be covered.
To keep livestock you also need a Property Identification Code (PIC) https://www.lls.nsw.gov.au/what-we-do/our-major-projects/every-bit-counts/resources/livestock/sheep-and-goats/have-animals-you-need-a-pic!
My sister has a hobby farm in NZ with sheep so we’ve had up close hands-ons experience. They do smell and attract flies, especially during wet weather. Our high humidity could make it worse.
I understand your passion and reasons for wanting to keep sheep, but our close proximity to each other may negatively impact your neighbours.
Hi all,
just a clarification since a few people asked about type & process of this proposal:
The Community won’t vote on an ISMP for sheep.
The Co-op will be voting at the GM about Crow and Aliya’s Ordinary Resolution requesting an exception to our by-law 7 (‘Cloven-hoofed animals are not permitted on the Co-operative. …’) with their intentions given in the attached sheep-plan.