
Sting operation: the fight against fire ants and allegations of threats, harassment and stalking
A two-sided sheet of paper placed on each seat advised residents how to legally obstruct a biosecurity officer from the National Fire Ant Eradication Program.
The organisers of the late March meeting suggested that landowners join a Facebook message group so that when biosecurity officers arrived, they would face not one property owner but dozens of protesters. They oppose any violence.
A number of groups, including the Australian Advocacy Group and the Facebook-based 'Stop the toxic fire ant program', want to give up on wiping out the invasive pest, claiming the chemicals used are unsafe.
'We, as a community, have to learn how to live with fire ants,' Libertarian Senate candidate and former biosecurity officer Jim Willmott said at a second community event the Guardian attended in Fernvale in early April.
Willmott has also been part of a separate and unrelated campaign working to build distrust against the renewable energy rollout.
But opposition to the eradication program could undermine efforts to rid Australia of the highly invasive ants, which could cost the economy billions of dollars a year, experts say.
Sign up for the Afternoon Update email newsletter
Two rightwing senators spoke at the Samford Community Centre. Gerard Rennick, who quit the LNP in August, had not prepared a speech but was there as a concerned neighbour whose property could be treated.
Rennick left the LNP last year after losing a winnable spot on the Queensland Senate ticket. He had faced a challenge from the party's more moderate wing, which had grown uncomfortable with his statements on vaccines, climate change and Ukraine.
Malcolm Roberts, from Pauline Hanson's One Nation, endorsed the Samford event organisers. 'These people have done their research,' he said.
Roberts said fire ant eradication was about a much larger issue: 'Control, property rights and wealth transfer, transfer from you to the people pushing this treatment.'
'The number one problem for governments in our country is that politicians refuse to use data when making decisions, policies and laws ... heard of climate change, climate fraud, Covid mismanagement, Covid deceit?' he said.
Event organiser Trevor Hold told the Samford meeting: 'We've seen in the Covid Senate inquiry that not enough weight was put on human rights. I feel that's happening now as well because they haven't learnt their lesson.'
The red imported fire ant probably arrived in Australia from South America in the 1990s, well before it was discovered at the Port of Brisbane in February 2001.
Ever since, authorities have been attempting to wipe them out, an effort that has cost $1.2bn. If allowed to spread, the ant could make the vast majority of Australia its home, with substantial impacts on people's health and the environment.
Since 2015, the eradication effort has been funded by state, territory and federal governments. It is carried out on foot and by helicopter, drones and fixed-wing aircraft using baits like s-methoprene and pyriproxyfen or more traditional insecticides such as fipronil. The plan is to gradually shrink the 830,000-hectare area in which the pest is currently contained, mostly in and around Brisbane.
But while activist groups like those at the Samford meeting oppose violent obstruction, workers from the national eradication program have reported being threatened with dogs and guns. Police now routinely escort biosecurity officers.
Speaking with Guardian Australia on the condition of anonymity, two of the program's field officer supervisors said they had encountered the sentiment in pockets across the entire eradication band, which extends in a loop from the Gold Coast to west of Grafton and the Sunshine Coast.
Maddie* claims she has been verbally abused 'countless times' and photographed and stalked while working in the eradication zone.
'I've had people right up in my face yelling at me while videoing me at the same time, refusing any degree of treatment,' she says.
'They're calling us names, telling us that we're killing their dogs. Telling us: 'My child got reactions because of you. My chickens have died because of you.'
'We've had threats of 'If you come on my property, I'll shoot you'. 'If you try and come on my property, I'll set my dog on you.'
'I've even had one staff member who was actually physically abused on the job, they managed to grab the lanyard around her neck. She was scared for her life, in absolute tears.'
Karen* claims a property owner 'hunted down the team and actually threatened them and also threatened to use a gun on them'.
The supervisors say most owners are supportive of the program but claim a small minority had left staff fearful and seeking police escorts. Program data showed 1% of properties could not be treated and that 99% had been treated.
Marni Manning, the general manager of strategy and delivery at the eradication program, says research it conducted found objectors primarily did not recognise government authority and questioned the government's right to manage private land – a sentiment that had increased significantly since the Covid pandemic.
Other reasons given by landowners who objected to treatment included a lack of confidence in the safety of treatment products and the belief that treatment was unnecessary because owners had not seen fire ants on their land.
Karen says staff sought approval from property owners before treatment, but under biosecurity legislation, program officers – who work in groups of two to 14 – could enter and treat a property without consent.
The program has contacted police after some field officers were allegedly doxxed, and when field officers were barred from accessing a property.
In cases when people were 'incredibly hostile', program staff would 'proactively engage with the police to escort us and to keep the peace and to keep everyone safe in that environment, because we need to complete the treatment', Maddie says.
Manning cites one instance where property owners were alleged to have threatened to 'shoot down' the program's helicopters, which spray granular baits containing a fire ant-targeted nerve agent. Manning says the local council notified the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Casa) and the alleged threats related to mosquito control flights that had been mistaken for fire ant operations.
A Casa spokesperson said it had 'been notified of a threat to operators of the program made via a social media post, as has Queensland police. Police are investigating and Casa will assist if requested.'
Manning says New South Wales police contacted the program after identifying a different potential threat related to its operations in the NSW northern rivers after the detection of infestations in the region.
The Invasive Species Council's Reece Pianta says there have been misunderstandings regarding the science and processes used in the fire ant eradication effort.
He says the treatment used is highly targeted to fire ants and is 'the safest and most efficient' way to tackle the pest.
Some people have raised concerns about fipronil, which is banned for use on crops in the EU, China, Vietnam and California because of its effect on pollinators.
But Jack Gough of the Invasive Species Council said in early 2024 that concerns over the health and environmental impacts of the insecticide did not reflect the highly targeted and low levels at which it's used by the ant eradication program.
'This is being done in a targeted fashion at very low doses in ways that aren't comparable to the broad-scale use of fipronil on crops. They are just such wildly different scales of use,' he said.
'There's absolutely no way the way it is being used [on fire ants] is going to have an impact on native animals, other than some highly localised impacts on native ant species that will quickly recolonise once fire ants have been removed from the area.'
Many opponents are concerned that the chemicals used are unsafe, particularly when used repeatedly on the same property. They claim that if there are no known ants in the area, the poisons are being deployed improperly as a preventative, or 'prophylactic', treatment.
A spokesperson for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority said s-methoprene and pyriproxyfen were 'of low toxicity to mammals' and 'do not pose a significant risk to humans, the environment, or domestic pets' when used as directed.
'The use of these products within the … treatment or surveillance areas is not considered prophylactic or preventative since fire ants are likely to be present.'
Field officer supervisors Maddie and Karen now give staff the tools they need to deal with hostility.
'It's just unfortunate [that] things like situational awareness and reading hostile body language are now starting to become part of that training,' Maddie says.
The eradication program could not confirm how many incidents had been referred to the police but says some matters are before the courts.
The fight against the eradication of fire ants is increasingly online, a program spokesperson says.
'Misinformation and baseless claims about our program, treatment products and the safety of eradication treatment for pets, livestock and the environment continue to circulate online and in mainstream media.
'Spreading misinformation disrupts eradication efforts and puts communities at risk by downplaying the serious impacts fire ants can have.'
Pianta said the disinformation was similar to climate change denialism or anti-vaccination movements.
'These conspiracy theories are dangerous because they undermine the effectiveness of national eradication efforts and put Australians at risk,' he says.
'The tiny minority who are refusing treatments on their properties are undermining the national program, which needs to conduct eradication activities on 100% of the targeted area.'
Willmott drew the biggest cheer of the night at the Samford event when he called for a more local approach based on community 'syndicates', individual choice of treatment type – including non-chemical approaches – and a switch from eradication to suppression.
'I think we've got a bit too much government,' the Libertarian Senate candidate said. 'People in Australia are just sick of the top-down authority and they want to have more control of what's going on in their lives every day.'
One audience member claimed he broke out in a rash and boils after spraying from a helicopter and had been to the emergency department three times. Others said pets had been harmed.
Event organiser Hold, billing himself as an 'ultrapreneur', showed off his alternative treatment technology based on pouring very hot water on ants.
Hold advised 'everyone who gets a notice should object' because doing so could 'delay them for months'. He said he had been 'coerced by government officials to do what I don't want to do – get treatment'.
An exemption in the Biosecurity Act allows a person to obstruct an officer if they have a 'reasonable excuse'.
Hold told Guardian Australia it was inevitable that some program officers were abused because the program was so invasive. He insists: 'I do not endorse violence.'
'I'm sure they have [been abused]. Every single time they go to someone's place that doesn't want [treatment] they threaten $16,000 fines and police arrest,' Hold says.
'These arguments are based on threats after threats after threats. Violating people's human rights, property rights and individual choice is going to create anger and, of course, people are going to start lashing out.'
Willmott told Guardian Australia that when fire ants were discovered in 2001 it was possibly already too late to stop their spread. He argues the eradication program is just creating a backlash.
He stresses opponents should never resort to violence: 'No way. That's not the way to do it. Advocacy and people power is the way to do it.'
Rennick says: 'I'm of the view the aim should be to eradicate. By trying to eradicate you at least get suppression. If there's a located fire ant nest down at Samford, by all means, spray the nest. I just don't know why they're spraying where there's no identified nests.'
Roberts told Guardian Australia: 'While One Nation supports a stronger overall effort to contain and eradicate red imported fire ants, we believe these efforts would be more effective if authorities worked more closely with landholders rather than just imposing blanket restrictions and rules for everyone.'
Samford resident Sarah McGuire says there have always been small groups of people opposed to the eradication program, but opponents became more organised when the program hit Samford Valley – a tight-knit community living on relatively large blocks.
McGuire founded the Facebook group Fire Ant Treatment Alternatives last year after her property was treated.
'A lot of people who live here are into an organic lifestyle and living,' she says. 'They've got small acreage. They grow a lot of their own fruit and veg. There's a lot of very environmentally conscious people here.'
McGuire, like Hold, believes the ants will inevitably win. 'You could nuke this whole state and the ants are still going to be here. They're invincible.'
*Names have been changed
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Edinburgh Reporter
5 minutes ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Edinburgh council may stop broadcasting some meetings online to save money
Edinburgh council may stop broadcasting some meetings online under plans city officers say would save around £6,000 a year. Some committees have been broadcast live since 2012, with recordings published on the council website. And the covid lockdown led to most publicly-open committees being broadcast live. Now, officers are asking councillors to approve the webcasting of three committees to be stopped, in hopes of saving around £6,000 per year. The Planning Local Review Body, the Consultative Committee with Parents and the Pentland Hills Regional Park Joint Committee would cease to be broadcast. This would mark a return to close to pre-Covid arrangements, though broadcasts of the Traffic Regulation Orders Sub-Committee and the Edinburgh City Region Joint Deal committee would continue. And, under proposals by officers, some internal and restricted meetings would stop being recorded with the webcasting system, with recordings instead being made with Teams. The same report also asks councillors to make a decision on whether to start recording private meetings, as well as the private portions of public meetings. Officers have recommended that councillors vote against it, over fears that they would be open to subject access requests and may be asked for in court proceedings. They say that exposure could conflict with the city's 'risk-averse' appetite, and instead want to see more detailed notes of private meetings kept. The request came after councillors raised concerns about the level of detail in minutes produced from private meetings. If recordings of meetings began, most recordings would only be retained until a copy of minutes was agreed. Officers suggest that the recording could be carried out either through the webcasting system – which could incur additional costs – or through Microsoft Teams. They say that using the webcasting system would incur additional costs, and could see uploads of the public portions of meetings significantly delayed. Using Microsoft Teams would produce lower quality recordings, but they say this would not be an issue due to the fact that the recordings would not be intended for publication. By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter Like this: Like Related


Daily Mirror
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump lashes out at people calling him a dictator then defends rewriting history
Donald Trump hit back at people calling him a dictator over his unprecedented takeover of police in Washington DC - before defending his plan to force museums to present history to align with his views Donald Trump moaned that people are calling him a dictator as he defended his unprecedented takeover of police in Washington DC. And he defended his plan to force museums to let him personally review exhibits to allow him to re-write history to reflect his views. He claimed many of his friends were "thanking" him for what he was doing in the capital. It comes after protests sprung up at random traffic stops last night, as locals branded officers "fascists". READ MORE: MIKEY SMITH: 12 wild Donald Trump moments as he floats second meeting with Putin and Zelensky Trump used emergency powers to take direct control of policing in Washington - and sent the National Guard in to bolster his response to what he claimed was an increase in crime. In reality, violent crime has decreased dramatically in DC over the last two years. "They like to say, 'Trump's a dictator!'," Trump said during a Q&A session in the Oval Office. "Well, I had calls from many, many friends - including Democrats - and they were thanking me so much for what I'm doing in DC." Asked if he was concerned the additional officers and troops patrolling the streets in Washington were being diverted from more important matters, he replied: "Like what? Like what?" The reporter replied: "Terrorism". Trump casually dismissed the suggestion, saying: "Oh terrorism, really?" He went on to say there would still be plenty of people to fight terrorism, and those deployed in DC were relatively small in number. He was also asked about his plan to "rid" Washington's world famous Smithsonian museums from what the White House has branded "left-wing spin". The White House has written to the institution, informing its Secretary Lonnie Bunch that the administration would be conducting a "comprehensive internal review of selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions" in fulfilment of an executive order entitled: "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History." The letter said they plan to "ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions." It's understood this could extend to exhibits relating to LGBTQ people, the Black Lives Matter movement and the Covid-19 pandemic. In the Oval Office today, Trump said: "We want the museums to treat our country fairly. We want the museums to talk about the history of our country in a fair manner, not in a woke manner or racist manner, which is what many of them are doing." An exhibit in the Museum of American History has already been re-written to downplay Trump's involvement in the January 6th attempted coup in 2021. The original exhibit noted - accurately - that Trump "repeated 'false statements' challenging the 2020 election results" and gave a speech that "encouraged -- and foreseeably resulted in -- imminent lawless action at the Capitol." Get Donald Trump updates straight to your WhatsApp! As the world attempts to keep up with Trump's antics, the Mirror has launched its very own US Politics WhatsApp community where you'll get all the latest news from across the pond. We'll send you the latest breaking updates and exclusives all directly to your phone. Users must download or already have WhatsApp on their phones to join in. All you have to do to join is click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! We may also send you stories from other titles across the Reach group. We will also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose Exit group. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. But the references to his false statements and the impact of his speech have been erased. It now reads: "On Jan. 13, 2021, Donald Trump became the first president to be impeached twice. The charge was incitement of insurrection based on his challenge of the 2020 election results and on his speech on Jan. 6. Because Trump's term ended on Jan. 20, he became the first former president tried by the Senate. He was acquitted on Feb. 13, 2021."


Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Britain is getting worse and the old politics offers no solutions
Is life in Britain getting better or worse? Fraser Nelson has ignited a vigorous debate by positing that 'broadly speaking there has never been a better time to live in the UK'. As evidence, he pointed out that overall crime, according to surveys, is only a third of the level of 25 years ago; that crime had fallen while immigration surged; that air pollution was at historically low levels; and that carbon emissions were falling. His assertion feels implausible. Still, one cannot simply dismiss it with anecdotes, or just claim the data is wrong. Data does matter, and it's not necessarily mistaken to use it to question the popular mood. After all, with Nelson as editor, The Spectator persistently opposed lockdowns on the basis that Covid was neither as dangerous nor as fast-spreading as the government claimed. Hard information proved the policy wrong. So what is it that jars to so many of us – including this writer? Well, first of all, it's that if you are trying to assess the quality of life in Britain you must use all available information and analyse it properly. In fact, overall crime has stopped falling and is ticking up again. Crimes as various as sexual assault and shoplifting, crimes that matter to us day-to-day, are going up significantly. Moreover we are all adjusting our behaviour as shops, streets, and trains feel more threatening, and as the police seem ever less on the side of the law-abiding. The data doesn't catch everything. And crime is only one element of the picture. We've had a serious spike in inflation and we can see prices going up yet again under the very uncertain hand of the Bank of England. Vast numbers of Britons have given up working. And GDP per head has grown barely 6 per cent since its pre-crash peak in 2007 – 0.3 per cent a year. In this steady state economy, the only way you get richer is if someone else gets poorer. Look no further for the source of the social conflict of recent years. So the wider data certainly gives a gloomier picture. But personally I believe something even more important is also going on. People are sensing the country is reaching a tipping point and that the future is going to be different to the past. When this happens, existing data will, self-evidently, tell you nothing reliable about the future. What a growing number of voters now see is that for 20 years we have taken the easy way out. We haven't dealt with our problems and we have carried on living on tick. But now the various bills must be paid and it is not going to be fun. For 20 years we have robbed selected wealthy Peter to pay collective Paul – or rather not pay, because we haven't run a budget surplus in any of those years and now one government pound in every twelve is spent on financing debt. It's not surprising people worry another financial crisis is coming. For 20 years we allowed immigration to increase to its highest ever levels. The consequences are now visible well beyond our major cities and we have nowhere to put illegal migrants except in hotels in hitherto untouched communities. Is it any wonder that people are suddenly agitated about the scale of the problem? For 20 years we told people that wind and sun could power Britain. Now they see fields covered with solar panels, their energy bills going up, and heavy industry leaving the country. Is it surprising that suddenly people think they have been sold a pup and fear the consequences? Even in those fortunate parts of the country that remain relatively untouched by migration or crime, people are beginning to ask themselves 'how long can it last'? No-one seems to think the problems can be fixed. All they hope to do is insulate themselves from them as long as they can. That's why people are right to be unhappy. So why have so many voices embarked on the implausible task of telling people things are not so bad? It's because they have to. After all, if the last twenty years have not been spent on turning Britain into a close approximation of the Elysian fields, but rather on complacently storing up difficulties that are now bursting out, why should anyone have confidence in the political ideas of that period or the parties and politicians in charge during it? The answer is that people won't have such confidence and will turn to others. That's why the establishment are so keen to persuade you that things are not as bad as they seem. 'Trust us, it's not so bad, we'll put things back on track.' Trust me, they won't. The people who got us here, who tried to stop us leaving the EU, who told us we had to rely on immigration, who said we could safely run down our energy systems and outsource the consequences to China: these people won't get us out again. Whatever Britain's future, it can't be like the past. Change is needed and change is surely coming.