How YOU Can Help Brumbies From Your Couch or Desk
Updated: 2 days ago
Dear Brumby Lover and general all-round decent human being🫶 We know there are incredible people fighting for brumbies on the front line; preparing legal challenges, digging through environmental papers, lobbying politicians, and fronting the media. Their work matters so very much. But not everyone has the time, money, or mental clarity and fortitude to do that level of advocacy. So I thought I would put together a list of ideas of things that you could do mostly from your couch or desk! Please remember you don't have to do everything, doing something will help and you can be proud to say you were part of this movement.
I'm going to try and make it simple, if you need further information please don't hesitate to send me a message. Everything in this blog is my opinion and in no way am I quoting other organisations, and where I make claims, it is of course allegedly!
Caution! I have done my very best to pass on accurate information but can make mistakes, therefore I ask that you always do your own research before taking action!
Sign the Heritage Petition: Closes Thursday 15th October This is Carmen's petition and is open to all Australian residents. Please sign as a matter of urgency, scan or Click Here
If you already know all the ins and outs of what going on
If you're new to the Brumby cause, here's some info to fast-track your knowledge
Brumby Advocacy Lexicon (Key Abbreviations)
The Brumby Killing Culprits
DCCEEW — Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Sets national environmental policy frameworks that states use to justify brumby reduction and ecological impact claims. This department spew out an endless cycle of government and institutional reporting that creates the appearance of action, accountability, or expertise while obscuring simple facts and outcomes.
ISC — Invasive Species Council Lobby group pushing strong eradication measures. Their reports often rely on selective data and urgent framing that critics say exaggerates brumby impact and drives political pressure. Scaremongers at best, they frighten the Australian public into believing we are under attack to garner huge budgets running into the $billions. Offshoot projects such as Reclaim Kosci, wholly created to promote getting Brumbys out of the KNP. So beware of groups that may be also banging the invasives drum.
IUCN — International Union for Conservation of Nature Global conservation body whose invasive‑species definitions and ecosystem guidelines are frequently cited to justify brumby reduction.
NSW NPWS — National Parks and Wildlife Service Implements trapping, removal, and aerial culling under direction from the NSW Labor Government. Provides limited operational transparency.
Penny Sharpe — NSW Minister for the Environment Approves and defends aerial culling as “necessary.” Her decisions directly shape NPWS operations and the current reduction strategy.
Snowy Hydro Major energy corporation reshaping large areas of Kosciuszko. Snowy Hydro 2.0 construction has caused land clearing, sinkholes, and repeated environmental breaches, yet brumbies are publicly framed as the primary threat to native species — a major inconsistency.
Additional Culprits
1080 Poisoning (Sodium Fluoroacetate)
A highly toxic chemical used in Australia for pest control. Connection: mooted to being used in the KNP. 1080 is central to the broader wildlife‑management debate because it is deployed widely across national parks. Advocates highlight 1080 as an example of controversial, non‑selective, slow‑acting poison, raising concerns about suffering, accidental ingestion, and ecosystem impacts. Now advocates of this abomination will tell you it is a naturally occurring substance so our native species 'have a high tolerance' to it. Do not believe this BS, native and especially dogs are very sensitive to it. Passing poison through the food chain is a ticking timebomb.
30 by 30 (30×30)
A global conservation initiative aiming to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030. Connection: Some environmental groups frame brumby reduction as part of achieving “restored ecosystems” within protected areas. Advocates argue that 30×30 can be used to justify aggressive wildlife removal under the banner of ecological restoration.
Red Energy
A retail electricity company owned by Snowy Hydro. Connection: It is not directly involved in brumby management, but it is often mentioned because it is wholly owned by Snowy Hydro, which operates across the same region where brumby policy is contested. Brumby advocates argue that horses are being blamed and removed while far larger environmental impacts and breaches linked to Snowy Hydro 2’s construction and land disturbance go unaddressed.
RSPCA NSW Despite its animal welfare mandate, the RSPCA did not intervene to halt
brumby culling programs that many advocates considered inhumane,leadingto claims that it failed the very animals it exists to protect.
AVA — Australian Veterinary Association Many brumby advocates argue that the Australian Veterinary Association failed wild horses by lending professional credibility to culling programs while not adequately challenging reports of animal suffering associated with those operations.
Government Biodiversity and Clean Energy Credits
This is a complex web that in my opinion is not regulated well. $billions are on offer, and we know who is getting rich.
1. Clean Energy Regulator (CER) Controls:
ACCUs – Australian Carbon Credit Units (carbon credits)
NRM biodiversity certificates – under the Nature Repair Market
How national parks benefit:
Parks cannot earn ACCUs or NRM certificates.
But CER‑aligned projects (run by NGOs or private proponents on park land) can bring contract funding, project money, and management grants into park budgets.
Parks benefit indirectly, through funding tied to “ecosystem improvement” metrics that CER frameworks help justify.
2. Nature Repair Market (NRM) Controls:
Biodiversity certificates for voluntary nature‑repair projects
Federal biodiversity project register
How national parks benefit:
Parks cannot sell certificates, but NRM projects can be partnered or co‑located on park land.
This brings federal biodiversity funding, research contracts, and “restoration” money into park operations.
The NRM’s scoring system can also justify increased government allocations for parks labelled “high‑value biodiversity assets.”
3. NSW Dept of Planning & Env (NSW DPE) Controls:
BAM credits – ecosystem credits + species credits
NSW biodiversity offset scheme used by developers
How national parks benefit:
Parks cannot generate or sell BAM credits.
BUT BAM scores influence state funding decisions:
“Threatened ecosystems”
“High‑value conservation land”
“Restoration priority zones”
These labels help parks secure larger budgets, more staff, more conservation grants, and more political leverage.
The Bottom Line: How Parks Profit Without Selling Credits
National parks do not earn credits, but they do earn money from the
frameworks behind them:
Credit systems create metrics (vegetation condition, habitat scores, carbon storage).
Those metrics feed into funding justifications for parks.
The more “threatened” or “high‑value” a park is scored, the more money flows from state and federal governments.
Introduced species can distort these metrics, making parks appear to be “improving” or “recovering,” which can boost funding allocations.
In short: Credits don’t pay national parks, but the scoring systems behind them absolutely do.
The Associated Regulatory Bodies
ACNC — Australian Charities and Not‑for‑profits Commission
Regulates charities. Useful for verifying whether organisations involved in the brumby debate are properly registered, transparent, and compliant.
ASIC — Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Not directly involved in brumby management. Relevant only when charities or advocacy groups need to be checked for legitimacy, governance, or compliance. Connection: They allow the Invasive Species Council to use the word “Council”, making it sound official when it is not.
NEMA — National Emergency Management Agency
Oversees national disaster and emergency planning. Connection: Their interest in brumbies is tied to fire‑load reduction in national parks, where vegetation management and fuel risks intersect with wild horse numbers.
CASA Firearm‑from‑Aircraft Approval
Formal approval required from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for any operation involving the carrying and discharge of firearms from aircraft. Connection: Aerial shooting of brumbies cannot legally occur without this approval. The Air Operator’s Certificate holder must obtain the authorisation, and all personnel must ensure the approval is valid and complies with every condition in the documentation.
CAR (Clean Energy Regulator) The Clean Energy Regulator assesses carbon credit projects. Depending on
the project rules, landholders may need to change land management
practices, which can sometimes include controlling introduced species, to
increase carbon storage or reduce emissions.
Australian DCCEEW– Biodiversity Division
The Biodiversity Division develops national biodiversity policy and threatened‑species frameworks. It sets the overarching direction for biodiversity programs, while implementation is carried out by state agencies. Current policy settings often rely on species removal or control to demonstrate ecological improvement.
Government
The current government
The current NSW Labor Government supports strong reduction of brumby numbers in Kosciuszko National Park (and others) and authorises aerial culling under its environmental policy framework. Be very careful when strategically voting, check first that the party you are voting for aligns with your beliefs.
MLAs — Members of the Legislative Assembly (State Lower House)
State‑level elected representatives in the State Legislative Assembly.
Connection: MLAs vote on State Laws, including anything affecting National Parks, NPWS operations, land management, and brumby policy. They are the primary people who can influence brumby legislation directly.
(Readers should always confirm current status.)
MLCs — Members of the Legislative Council (State Upper House)
State‑level representatives in the State Legislative Council. Connection: MLCs review, amend, and vote on State legislation. They can block, modify, or delay bills affecting brumbies, making them strategically important for advocacy.
(Readers should always confirm current status.)
MPs — Members of Parliament (Federal Lower House)
Federal MPs represent electorates in the House of Representatives (Canberra). Connection: They do not control brumby policy, which is a State matter. But they can:
raise the issue federally,
question DCCEEW,
support inquiries,
amplify public concerns nationally. Useful for visibility and pressure, but not for direct policy change.
(Readers should always confirm current status.)
Senators — Members of the Australian Senate (Federal Upper House)
Federal representatives who review, amend, and vote on national legislation. Connection: Senators cannot change State brumby policy directly, but they can:
raise the issue in Senate committees,
question federal agencies,
bring national attention to state‑level concerns. They are valuable for federal‑level scrutiny and visibility.
(Readers should always confirm current status.)
Brumby Supporting Politicians
MLCs — Legislative Council (Upper House)
These are the strongest and most consistent brumby advocates.
Rachel Merton (Liberal, MLC) Most vocal defender of brumbies in NSW Parliament. Opposed aerial culling and continues to advocate for protection.
Emma Hurst (Animal Justice Party, MLC) Opposes lethal control. Advocates for animal welfare and non‑lethal management.
Rod Roberts (Independent, MLC) Opposed the repeal that enabled aerial culling. Continues to speak against mass killing.
Tania Mihailuk (Independent, MLC) Opposed the repeal. Supports animal‑welfare‑focused positions.
Wes Fang (Nationals, MLC) Opposed the legislative changes that enabled aerial culling.
Sarah Mitchell (Nationals, MLC) Has opposed aerial culling measures and supported humane alternatives.
MLAs — Legislative Assembly (Lower House)
Only one MLA has been publicly supportive in 2026.
Nicole Overall (Nationals, MLA) Opposed the repeal enabling aerial culling and has shown support for humane brumby management.
Federal MPs (House of Representatives)
Angus Taylor (Liberal, Member for Hume) Spoke at a pro‑brumby rally in 2026. Called aerial shooting “inhumane.” Publicly supportive of communities opposing the cull.
Federal Senators (Senate)
No federal Senators have made public pro‑brumby statements in 2026.
Brumby Advocates - non-government
You, me and thousands of others, some you don't even see or hear about!
The most influential currently are:
ABMO (Australian Brumby Management Organisation) — welfare‑focused management advocates.
Alan Jones — media figure amplifying anti‑culling concerns.
Bluewater Brumbies Inc. — active humane‑treatment advocates.
Brumby Action Group — high‑visibility grassroots campaigners.
Carmen Jackson — prominent public campaigner against culling.
Charlie Massy — author challenging ecological simplifications.
Coffin Bay Brumby Preservation Society — sanctuary operators with heritage focus.
Forever Free Brumby Rescue — small informal sanctuary; advocates for brumby protection.
Heritage Brumby Advocates Australia — heritage and welfare campaigners.
HOOFS2010 — major rehoming and long‑term welfare advocates. Independent aerial observers — provide footage shaping public perception.
Jan Carter (Save the Brumbies Inc.) — long‑standing sanctuary leader. Peta Credlin — commentator raising transparency concerns.
Peter Cochran — former MP; major heritage‑horse advocate.
Regional landholders near Kosciuszko — supply on‑ground evidence and testimony.
Save the Brumbies Inc. — established sanctuary and heritage advocates.
Sian Whitewolf-Molyneaux - Has a bill submitted to parliament, runs Wild Horse Protection
Sky News regional commentators — amplify public debate and scrutiny. Snowy Brumby Supporters Network — strong community mobilisation and monitoring.
The Pulse News - an agricultural orientated news channel, honest and investigative. Our friend and ally is Mike Ryan Wild Horse Protection Australia - a whole movement with the welfare of Australia's wild horses as their focus. Advocating, rescue, government lobbying
Other info
KNP = Kosciuzko National Park, NSW, where the latest atrocity was carried out
Brief history of what has been going on
2018: NSW passes the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Act, legally recognising brumbies as part of the park’s cultural heritage.
The Act requires a management plan balancing heritage values with environmental protection.
2019: NPWS begins drafting new population targets and management strategies under the Act.
2020: Debate intensifies between environmental groups and heritage advocates over population estimates.
2021: NPWS releases updated counts; advocates dispute accuracy and methodology.
2021–2022: Trapping and rehoming continue, but numbers removed remain low compared to targets.
2022: Pressure grows from lobby groups calling for stronger reduction measures.
2023: NSW Government repeals key protections in the 2018 Act, removing barriers to lethal control.
Late 2023: Aerial shooting of brumbies resumes in Kosciuszko for the first time in decades.
The operation is conducted with limited transparency and no independent carcass inspections.
RSPCA NSW endorses NPWS reports without conducting its own welfare audits.
Public outrage escalates as footage and eyewitness accounts emerge.
2024: NPWS continues aerial culling under ministerial approval; population estimates remain contested.
Community groups increase monitoring and documentation of operations.
Rescue organisations struggle to obtain trapped horses due to reduced rehoming pathways.
2025: Advocacy intensifies; several NSW MLCs publicly oppose aerial culling.
Federal MPs raise the issue in Canberra, though federal government has no direct authority.
Media commentators begin covering concerns about transparency and animal welfare.
2026: NSW Labor Government continues aerial culling in Kosciuszko, with NPWS conducting multiple operations and reporting “no adverse outcomes,” a stance supported by RSPCA NSW. Large numbers of carcasses are left across the park, raising concerns about water quality, scavenger disruption, and lack of independent welfare oversight. Brumby advocates challenge the accuracy of population estimates and call for humane management, transparency, and reinstatement of heritage protections. September 2026 – Independent Welfare Review (3‑day sample only): An observer monitored three days (they were shooting for approx 4 weeks) of the aerial shooting program in Kosciuszko National Park. Across this short window, 180 horses were chased, 154 killed and 26 escaped. The report claimed zero non‑fatal wounding, but only for the days observed. Shot counts remained high (average 6.6 per horse), chase times reached over six minutes, and all juveniles present were killed. No foals were seen during the observer’s limited attendance. The findings apply only to this brief sample, not the full multi‑week operation.
As this 'goes to press' additional information In September, brumby advocate Carmen Jackson successfully halted planned aerial shooting in Yuraygir National Park through urgent court action, forcing NPWS to pause operations pending further legal consideration. Brumby advocates continue pushing for humane management, accurate population data, and reinstatement of heritage protections. Also pending is a decision on the KNP shooting activities. Also this week Mid September 2026
A petition initiated by Carmen Jackson and signed by more than 32,000 people
was presented to the NSW Parliament, highlighting widespread concern about the
aerial culling of brumbies. The petition now requires a formal response from the
Government, making it an important step in bringing public concerns directly
before decision-makers. Go to the What you can do section where a new one needs signing. Late September 2026
Supporters of the Kosciuszko brumbies have received some welcome news, with
the NSW Government reportedly deciding not to renew the planned November
shooting program ahead of upcoming court proceedings.
The legal action was initiated by Roxanne Phoenix and Matthew Holland, with
supporters helping fund the engagement of XD Law. Andrew Thaler and Roxanne Phoenix are reported to have instructed XD Law in the matter.
While many are celebrating the development, it is important to view it as a
temporary reprieve rather than a final victory. The shooting program may be off the table for now, but the broader legal and political battle over the future of the Kosciuszko brumbies remains
unresolved. For the horses, this is valuable breathing space, but the fight is far from over.
Brumby Advocate Points to refute government claims
Over and above all of the following points, I was struggling to quantify the full extent of my objection to these atrocities until an epiphany struck me: beyond the vile killing itself, what troubles me most is the almost cult-like devotion to the invasive-species agenda, the half-truths used to justify it, and the willingness of the Australian Government to sacrifice compassion, morality, and humanity itself in pursuit of 30 by 30 targets, biodiversity credits, and carbon credits. The result, in my view, is conduct so profoundly inhumane that it makes Australia appear less like a modern First World nation and more like a society that has abandoned the most basic standards of human decency: Brumbies existed in the Snowy Mountains for over a century before Kosciuszko was declared a national park, meaning they were part of the landscape long before modern park boundaries or management frameworks were created.
The Ngarigo people, traditional custodians of the region, publicly called for the shooting to stop, but their concerns were not incorporated into government decision‑making, raising questions about cultural consultation and respect for Indigenous voices.
Government population estimates have varied dramatically year‑to‑year, raising concerns about accuracy.
Independent counters have produced lower numbers than NPWS modelling.
Aerial surveys rely on sampling and extrapolation rather than direct counts, increasing uncertainty.
Advocates report that NPWS has not released full raw survey datasets for independent verification.
Only limited independent carcass inspections were conducted during aerial culling operations, with most carcasses never examined.
Welfare assessments relied on short, NPWS‑controlled observation windows and limited ground inspections, with no continuous external oversight.
Shot‑placement claims are based on a small sample of inspected carcasses, not the full number of horses shot.
Only a limited number of carcasses were made available for veterinary examination; most were not independently inspected.
Government messaging often references RSPCA NSW to imply external oversight, but there is no public evidence that RSPCA NSW has formally endorsed the independent veterinary welfare assessment reports or conducted comprehensive field investigations of aerial shooting in Kosciuszko.
The AVA has issued policy positions supporting aerial shooting as a control method, but has not published detailed, independent field audits of welfare outcomes in Kosciuszko.
Government claims of “instant death” conflict with eyewitness accounts describing prolonged suffering.
Advocates report inconsistencies between NPWS statements and on‑ground observations.
Environmental impact claims often rely on selective or outdated studies, creating uncertainty about the true scale of brumby impact.
Government messaging rarely acknowledges positive or neutral ecological roles brumbies may play in certain contexts.
Heritage considerations outlined in the 2018 Act were weakened after legislative changes, reducing their influence on management decisions.
Rehoming pathways have been reduced in scope, limiting humane alternatives.
Advocates report being denied access to observe operations or verify outcomes independently.
NPWS transparency declined after aerial culling resumed, increasing public distrust.
Government and aligned organisations emphasise “no adverse animal welfare events” based on limited assessments, despite the absence of continuous independent oversight.
Advocates argue that policy decisions appear driven by political pressure rather than balanced ecological analysis.
The Invasive Species Council frames brumbies as the primary threat while giving less attention to larger, well‑documented pressures on native species.
ISC messaging often relies on selective data, presenting worst‑case ecological claims without acknowledging uncertainty or conflicting studies.
Advocates argue ISC uses emotionally charged language that exaggerates brumby impact.
ISC frequently cites population numbers that have not been independently verified, contributing to public confusion.
ISC rarely acknowledges that many native species declines pre‑date brumby population growth, indicating other drivers are responsible.
Human activity including recreation, roads, ski resorts, mountain bike parks, campsites, fire roads, hikers, 4x4 traffic and hunters all causes widespread habitat disturbance not reflected in ISC messaging.
Wildfire remains one of the largest causes of native species decline, yet ISC commentary often downplays its role compared to horses.
Climate change has altered alpine ecosystems dramatically, affecting species distribution and survival independent of brumby presence.
Snowy Hydro operations have cleared large corridors of land, reshaped waterways, and caused repeated environmental breaches, yet these impacts receive little ISC scrutiny.
Snowy Hydro’s construction footprint is significantly larger than any area disturbed by brumbies, but ISC rarely includes this in public impact comparisons.
The widespread use of 1080 poison across national parks affects scavengers, predators, and non‑target wildlife, yet ISC seldom addresses these risks.
1080 poisoning contributes to ecosystem imbalance by removing key predator species, indirectly affecting native fauna survival.
ISC messaging often omits the cumulative impact of human‑driven pressures such as tourism, infrastructure, and fire‑trail expansion.
Advocates argue ISC presents brumby removal as a simple ecological fix, despite the complexity of alpine ecosystem decline.
ISC campaigns frequently highlight herbivore damage but rarely contextualise it against larger disturbances caused by human land‑use.
ISC public statements tend to portray brumby impacts as catastrophic, even when evidence shows mixed or localised effects.
ISC rarely acknowledges that some native species declines are driven by disease, climate cycles, or historical land management practices.
Advocates reject ISC claims because they appear to support predetermined policy outcomes rather than balanced ecological analysis.
ISC messaging often discourages public scrutiny by framing dissenting views as “misinformation,” reducing open scientific debate.
Overall, advocates argue that ISC narratives oversimplify complex ecological issues and unfairly attribute broad environmental decline to a single species.
Helicopter pursuit drives horses to exhaustion, causing panic, falls, and injuries; advocates report cases of horses breaking legs during high‑speed chases.
Pregnant mares are not exempt from aerial operations, raising serious welfare concerns about stress, trauma, and fetal loss.
The 2023 veterinary audit documented an average of 7.5 bullets per horse, with some horses showing many entry wounds, contradicting claims that aerial shooting is humane or instantaneous.
Helicopter downdraft can disorient wildlife, scatter birds, and disturb ground‑dwelling species; ricocheting bullets pose additional risks to non‑target animals.
Large numbers of horse carcasses have been left in Kosciuszko National Park after aerial operations, raising concerns about contamination risks and ecosystem impacts.
Terms like “feral” and “invasive” have scientific definitions, but their use in public debate often reflects opinion and framing as much as strict ecological classification.
Our Mission
We agree to:
Put the welfare and future of brumbies at the centre of our advocacy.
Respect people who are acting in good faith, even when we strongly disagree.
Debate evidence, policies and ideas rather than attacking individuals.
Not use harassment, threats, doxxing, ridicule or character assassination.
Not publicly represent another person's position without checking it first.
Resolve disputes privately wherever reasonably possible.
Correct misinformation, including our own mistakes.
Celebrate the achievements of other brumby advocates rather than treating
them as competition.
Disclose conflicts of interest where relevant.
Accept that unity does not mean unanimity.
We have many opponents, but our greatest adversary is the fear-driven narrative that convinces Australians their nation is under constant attack. Too many decent, well-meaning people have been persuaded by exaggeration and alarmism and, without realising it, come to support actions they may never have endorsed had they been presented with the full picture. Changing minds is no easy task, but it is far more likely to be achieved through patience, respect and understanding than through anger. As tempting as it can be, rudeness rarely changes opinions; thoughtful and friendly conversations do. I am guilty of sarcastic and facetious posts, alas I committ to making a change and be a little more diplomatic.
What you can do
Donate
Donate what you can afford, be it $5, $20, it doesn't matter, a hundred $5 donations soon add up!
Legal Funds
Sharilea Hitchcock and Roxanne Phoenix court battle
We have successfully obtained standing to fight for an injunction. in the NSW Supreme Court , in a case concerning the management of wild horses (brumbies) in Kosciuszko National Park.
The case seeks to legally stop the labor government from aerial shooting brumbies in the KNP.
Funds will be used for
• Solicitor fees
• Barrister fees
• Associated court costs
•Associated expert evidence costs and where required to pay urgent feed bills for any urgent brumby welfare needs approved by me
All funds raised will be applied to the solicitor trust account for legal expenses for this Supreme Court matter or directly to expert evidence or contracts or computer database work required for the legal challenge.
Your support will help ensure heritage values are properly considered in the ongoing management of one of Australia’s iconic national parks.
Thank you for your consideration.
Fundraiser by Sharilea Hitchcock : The fight is on to save our brumbies from being shot
Media News. The Pulse, available on YouTube, Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire, is a news channel, supporting the Brumbys and many other concerns that Australians have regarding the way the country is going. Investigative, concerned with agricultural matters, is looking at the big picture when it comes to the Brumby situation. They are very concerned about the ISC, an organisation that needs regulating. Check out their website THE PULSE - TODAY'S NEWS TALK or these broadcasts The invasives cult (my words not The Pulse)
The lack of science (my words not The Pulse) If you like them, bung them a few quid, help them spread the word. Donate to the Pulse
Advocacy groups. These are a key donation option for supporters who want brumbies to remain in the national parks. These organisations focus on public awareness, heritage protection, political pressure, documenting NPWS operations, challenging population estimates, and pushing for humane, transparent management. Donations help them run campaigns, produce evidence, lobby MPs and MLCs, and keep the issue visible in media and parliament. Before donating make sure the organisation aligns with your beliefs.
Legitimate pro‑brumby advocacy groups include the Snowy Brumby Sustainability Group, Brumby Action Group, and the Snowy Brumby Supporters Network, all of which support keeping brumbies on‑country in Kosciuszko National Park.
Brumby Rescues. Brumby rescues save, rehabilitate and rehome wild horses, getting them out of harm's way. If you'd like to directly support brumby welfare, consider donating to one of the rescue groups:
Clearview Brumby Rescue
https://www.facebook.com/ClearviewBrumbyRescueQld/
Rosewood Hills Brumby Rescue
https://masonmaaclean.wixsite.com/website-1
New Dawn Safe Haven
Mountain Brumby Sanctuary
https://www.mountainbrumbysanctuary.org.au/
Umbango South
Phone: 0419 274 198
HOOFS2010 Inc.
Forever Free Brumby Rescue
https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1bh2XkjQkm/
Not for consideration are
❌ General environmental organisations
❌ Broad conservation charities
❌ National park “friends” groups
❌ Large wildlife NGOs
❌ Anyone selling at horse sales
Many of these groups explicitly support brumby removal — not necessarily killing, but removal to zero, which still aligns with eradication.
Social Media
Join legitimate Brumby advocacy groups. The more connected you are, the more good information you’ll see, and the more impact your engagement has.
Engage with posts that genuinely help the cause. If a post adds value, give it a Like or Love, leave a supportive comment, like other people’s comments, and share it with anyone who would care. Just a "Fantastic❤️" is enough if you have nothing else to add. The algorithm sees this and recommends the post to more people.
Watch out for political opportunists and trolls. Some people jump into Brumby spaces just to push a political party or stir trouble. Spot them early, ignore them, and report trouble makers to group admins.
Don’t be afraid to contribute. If you have useful information, an idea for action people can take, or a fresh angle, create your own post. Good content strengthens the whole movement.
Use hashtags strategically. Tag your posts and comments with #brumby and #mustang. If these start trending, it boosts visibility for both Australian brumbies and our friends in the USA fighting for their mustangs.
Ask smart questions on non-Brumby public pages. Jump onto Facebook pages for Councils, NEMA, ASIC, ACNC, RFS, DCCEEW, IUCN, ISC, NSWNPWS, Penny Sharp, political parties, and individual MPs where they may be referring directly to Brumbys or generally to 'Invasive' species. Leave fact‑based, polite statements on appropriate posts, never on sensitive posts involving historical events, tragedies, or personal loss, that would be a home goal for the Brumbys. Staying respectful helps you stay on a page, visible insults will only get you blocked (ask me how I know😂). You will probably eventually get blocked anyway because the truth hurts.
Tagging. When commenting and where appropriate tag the culpable organisations on posts by putting a @ before their name, it should appear in a dropdown and you can select it.
Subscribe to and watch the Pulse The Pulse YouTube Channel
Post or Share posts to your local community page. Most don't allow this but some do. Expect most commenters to be hostile towards you. If it gets too much, Just copy and paste a list of facts in reply to them, then go to the three dots and turn off comments. This is so annoying to them😂
Keep your comments and posts factual! We all let off steam and like to call the culprits names, but keep on the right side of the law. No threats to harm etc.
Support the organisations and politicians that are our friends. Join their social media pages and show them support. Thank them for any post advocating for the Brumbys and tell them how much you appreciate them:
Rachel Merton (Liberal, MLC)
Emma Hurst (Animal Justice Party, MLC)
Rod Roberts (Independent, MLC)
Tania Mihailuk (Independent, MLC)
Wes Fang (Nationals, MLC)
Sarah Mitchell (Nationals, MLC)
Nicole Overall (Nationals, MLA)
Angus Taylor (Liberal, Member for Hume)
YouTube, carry out a search for 'Brumby' and Subscribe, Like and Comment, Share to other Brumby lovers if appropriate.
Footnote Infighting. Like any passionate community, the brumby world experiences disagreements from time to time. While these may be described as infighting, similar exchanges in government and public policy are usually called debate. Keeping discussions friendly, respectful and focused on our shared concern for the horses helps strengthen the community.
Petitions
Take a moment to read each petition before signing, some may not fully align with your values.
Sign as many as you can.
Sharing petitions helps them gain traction: copy the petition’s web address and paste it into a social media post, encouraging others to sign.
Some petitions are restricted to certain states, meaning you must live in that state to be eligible.
URGENT UPDATE
Consider signing Carmen Jackson's Petition to Establish an Australian Bill of Rights and Heritage Protection Act.
Closes 15th October 2026 To read the proposal and sign click here
Don't forget to click the link in the email to complete the process
Or scan the QR code
This is concerned with introducing legislation to protect First Nations, convict, gold-rush, ANZAC and military, pioneering, natural, cultural, historic and living heritage, including significant landscapes, national parks, traditions and heritage animals. It should recognise animal sentience and protection from cruelty and unnecessary suffering.
Go to Change.org > Click Menu > Click Search > Type in Brumby. Sign as many as you can. You don't have to donate. But can if you feel it is a cause making a real difference.
Go to MP Angus Taylors Petition and join
Go to the Government Petitions Site > Go to Search > Type in Brumby
Change Your Electricity Supplier
If your electricity is supplied by Red Energy, use an independent Comparison site such as Compare The Market to find a better deal and switch
It's really important to phone Red Energy and tell them why you're switching
Contact other Government bodies/regulators
There are many government agencies that you can contact if for no other reason than to stir up awareness that we are not happy with their performance.
Everyone
Parks Australia
Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy,
the Environment and Water
National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)
Commonwealth Ombudsman ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au [ombudsman.gov.au], [ombudsman.gov.au]
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC)
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Local Land Services NSW
National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)
Federal Environment Minister
The Clean Energy Regulator
DCCEEW – Biodiversity Division
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)
Commonwealth Ombudsman
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water
Inspector-General of Environmental Regulation
Clean Energy Regulator – General Enquiries
enquiries@cer.gov.au
Clean Energy Regulator – Media
Clean Energy Regulator – Renewable Energy Target / REC Registry
New South Wales
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS)
NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW)
contact@environment.nsw.gov.au
NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC)
NSW Ombudsman
nswombo@ombo.nsw.gov.au [nsw.gov.au]
NSW Audit Office
NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA)
NSW State Emergency Service (SES)
Fire and Rescue NSW
NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS)
NSW Parliament Animal Welfare Committee
animal.welfare@parliament.nsw.gov.au
NSW Biodiversity Conservation Division
NSW Auditor-General
auditorgeneral@audit.nsw.gov.au
NSW Ombudsman
Biodiversity Conservation Trust (NSW)
NSW Biodiversity Conservation Division
NSW Auditor‑General
auditorgeneral@audit.nsw.gov.au
NSW Ombudsman
nso@ombo.nsw.gov.au
NSW Parliament Portfolio Committee No. 7 (Planning & Environment) PortfolioCommittee7@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Information and Privacy Commission NSW
Northern Territor
Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission
Department of Lands, Planning and Environment (NT)enviromail@nt.gov.au
Queensland
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS)
Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation
South Australia
National Parks and Wildlife Service South Australia
Department for Environment and Water (SA)
Tasmania
Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service
Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
Victoria
Parks Victoria
Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA)
Western Australi
Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA)
Parks and Wildlife Service WA
via DBCA
Samples of emails & who to write to
The Brumby situation is in a constant state of change. We learn more and more and evolve. At this moment, early September 2026, these are just my ideas, from the limited information and understanding I have.
Here are some sample letter suggestions:
Please do your own fact checking, I have done my best but it's been a lot to process in my spare time!
Please re-word it a little so it doesn't look like a junk mail-shot
Please check the email addresses, they can change or I've got it wrong
Please don't forget to add your name!!
To download the letters:
Click on one of the icons below
It will start downloading
Go to your Downloads folder and find the letter
Copy and paste the text into an email or save as your letter
Government
You could complain to your politician of choice, or a whole group of them about the review of the recent killing in KNP.
Send to:
Check out the What you can do > Contact your Government
Representatives section above to find details of government email
addresses.
ACNC Charities commission
You could complain to the ACNC (charities commission) about the ISC (invasives) scaremongering the public, with a letter similar to that below, again make changes, check the facts.
Send to
Australian Charities and Not‑for‑profits Commission (ACNC)
Auditor General, Biodiversity and Clean Energy Credit groups
Complain to the Biodiversity and Clean Energy Authorities about the cruelty being used to justify huge bio and clean energy credits (see below the unbelievable amount of departments!)
Send to
NSW Biodiversity Conservation Division info@environment.nsw.gov.au
NSW Auditor-General auditorgeneral@audit.nsw.gov.au
NSW Ombudsman nso@ombo.nsw.gov.au
Biodiversity Conservation Trust (NSW) info@bct.nsw.gov.au
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) Contact Form
Commonwealth Ombudsman ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water environment.reps@aph.gov.au
Inspector-General of Environmental Regulation iger@environment.gov.au
NSW Biodiversity Conservation Division info@environment.nsw.gov.au
NSW Ombudsman nso@ombo.nsw.gov.au
Clean Energy Regulator – General Enquiries enquiries@cer.gov.au
Clean Energy Regulator – Media media@cer.gov.au
Clean Energy Regulator – Renewable Energy Target / REC Registry
ret@cleanenergyregulator.gov.au
ABC News
Complain to the ABC to express concern that its coverage too often reflects what they see as invasive-species ideology.
This will need to be done by filling in the form on their website
https://help.abc.net.au/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=15738253526287
Mental Health Commissions and Government
Complain to the Mental Health Commissions to express concern that the mental health impacts of ongoing Brumby atrocities on horse lovers. advocates and affected community members are receiving little recognition.
Send it to (and send a copy to your politician(s) of choice)
NSW Mental Health Commission
MHC-ContactUs@health.nsw.gov.au
Alternate listing: mhc@mhc.nsw.gov.au
National Mental Health Commission (Australia)
enquiries@mentalhealthcommission.gov.au
Tourism Australia
Inform the Australian Tourism Office that you are actively telling people around the world about the treatment of wild horses, kangaroos and other wildlife in Australia, and encouraging them to boycott Australia as a tourism destination until these practices stop.
Send to
Government Audit Departments regarding ISC
Complain to the Auditor General about the influence the ISC has yet is not a government body. And to review any relationships and funding arrangements
Send to
Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)
Audit Office of New South Wales
Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports
Inspector-General of Water
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Contact Form
National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)
Contact Form
Legal Disclaimer
This blog reflects my personal opinions, commentary, and interpretations based on publicly available information and advocacy discussions. Any references to organisations, agencies, public figures, or government bodies relate solely to their public roles and publicly reported actions. Nothing here is intended as a statement of fact unless supported by publicly available evidence. Where claims or allegations are mentioned, they are presented as opinion only. This content is not intended to defame, mislead, or harm any individual or organisation. Readers should verify information independently and form their own conclusions.
Comments