Cattle were permitted to continue grazing in Queensland's Wet Tropics when it was World Heritage listed in 1988.

Recent announcements (despite its obligatory protection as World Heritage estate) that 39% of the area is being transformed from State Forest and Forest Reserve tenures to National Park, will significanty reduce permissable recreational and other uses.

Cattle have also been targetted for removal for reasons similar to Bracks' announcement, despite 60,000 heavy, hard-hooved feral pigs trashing the integrity of the rainforest root-mat with impugnity.

Over the past ten years, millions of dollars have been allocated for land acquisition on neighbouring freehold portions to protect ecological values within the World Heritage estate.

The history of broken promises made by previous governments cannot be disregarded. High country cattle grazing on State forests under Bracks' reassurances will undoubtedly be overturned by his successor and undoubtedly under the reshuffling of tenure within the proposed world heritage listing.

Neil, And I wonder how long before 'they' start working to convert the state forests to National Park and with this the exclusion of grazing from these areas.

Interestingly the mountain cattlemen have appealed to the Federal Government to have the Alpine National Park listed under the Heritage Act to allow grazing to continue.

Environment Minister Ian Campbell has started the procedure for an emergency listing. It is interesting that the Feds have decided to support the cattlemen against the state government.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1377958.htm

I have just completed a PhD in emergency management. One examiner described it as "a very fine thesis", "an absorbing read" and "in itself an act of bravery". Further, this examiner recommended the award of Doctor of Sociology without revision to the text. Another examiner recommended the award with editing and the third has still not completed marking.

My findings point to a huge swathe of corruption and fraud in a vast network funded by insurance policies (72%) and taxes. This funding has been based on a huge body of misrepresentation such as the absurd argument that grazing does not mitigate bushfires. Power bases backed by arguments such as this are repsonsible for the explosive emergence of the bushfire problem since the 1920s. A hugely influential power base circulates these arguments and gains more influence with the media stardom wildfires bring. Raising questions of a conflict of interest, Rural Fire Service Commissioner Phil Koperberg and Country Fire Authority Commissioner Len Foster head these bodies. This power web spreads from the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, Southeast Australian bushfire services through to 14 associated corporations (funded by taxpayers to purportedly coordinate different aspects of bushfire mitigation). These organisations represent a vast power base that gags academics frightened of losing vauable funding if they speak out about research fraud. This perpetuates the practice of reckless indifference
to preventing foreseeable injury, death and property and environmental damage. I would be most interested in personally verifying the veracity of claims that grazing does not mitigate bushfires.

I rode on horseback for a day and a half through totally devastated bush 13 months after the 2002/3 wildfires in the Kosciuszko National Park. In an oily bed of charcoal crusted soil, grey and white tree skeletons went for as far as I could see. The air was dank. It was like a graveyard as thin patches of paper daisies grew at the dead trees' feet. The only animals were birds.

This was only a sample of the damage and I would welcome a chance to more fully assess the devastation. In an area where brumbies ran, the bush flourished. There were lizards, snakes, kangaroos and wallabies and the air smelt of eucalypts. Wildfires had not penetrated.

Those funded by the bushfire service power base sweep such all too obvious examples aside. With evidence that flies in the face of his argument, some claim that grazing does not mitigate bushfires. As it contradicts the evidence they have personally gathered, this is a prima facie case of research fraud. In light of the huge power base backed by such compromised researchers, the matter cannot get enough media attention.
Regards

Christine Finlay

Emergency Management PhD Researcher UNSW
02 49754259
ccfinlay@aapt.net.au

Jennifer, as someone who is committed to letting science resolve environmental questions, you seem to take a predictably ideological stand on most issues. There are no valid reasons (particularly scientific)why cattle grazing in alpine regions should occur. All the valid science in this argument falls on the side of banning the presence of cattle. The issue of high plains grazing, form the farmers perspective, is one of government 'welfare' for a greedy few.

Hi Patrick,
Not sure that I am for/against grazing in National parks. I have seen some compelling evidence against grazing in the Macquarie Marshes. But I don't think the current ban in the High Country has been arrived at following an honest consideration of the issues.
Also, I don't think science can resolve issues per se. But I would like to see a more evidence-based approach to the resolution of environmental issues generally and w.r.t grazing in National Parks.
Science can't resolve issues because in the end competing interests need to be weighted against each other and then valued-judgements made.
I would be interested in your/a reasoned argument for the total exclusion of grazing in the Alpine National Park.
Also, can you tell me whether grazing has been permitted in 10 or 47% of the park?
Best,

Jennifer why should there be no grazing in a National Park?

How does grazing adversely impact the concept of 'National Park'?

What exactly is a 'National Park'?

If it is to be as pre Capt Cook, then let the aborigines burn and hunt and manage the place as they once did.

Is it to be pre Aborigine - no burn, no hunt, just "Pristine Wilderness"?

Maybe urban dwellers need to know that there is this area called Wilderness somewhere out there, a psychological escape route triggered by a nice photo on the calendar on the wall.

Grazing in National Parks should be mandatory, not only for the benifit of the tax payer but also for the ecological necessity the parks themselves crave. There would be plenty of capable stockmen willing to pay the government a lot of money for the right to tactically graze under strict guidlines. They would also in effect manage weeds and ferals at no cost to us and massively reduce the ability of fire to wipe out large areas in 'superhot' uncontrollable blazes. By using herbivores instead of fire you will promote the more palatable grasses and not promote the fire resistant scrubland that before you know it is creating another catastrophe. The next time someone feels the need to scream 'lock it up' I hope they first go and learn how a real effective bio-diverse ecology works. The sheep and cattle grazing are not the problem, its how we choose to graze them that can be.

with the protest against the decision to ban cattle from the national park on tomorrow, i suggest that we all call the organisers of the protest and tell them that we want the cattle to stop destroying this important part of our country. from their protest web site their details are

CONTACT PERSONS:

Rally logistics
Kersten 0418 331 465
Dave Stoney 0418 653 658

Horses
Charlie Lovick 03 5777 5715
Bruce McCormack 0427 752 886

MCAV Branch Key Contact People
Omeo - Chris Commins 0428 573 296
Dargo & Gippsland - David Treasure 03 5140 1235
Benambra – John Cook 03 5159 9276
Tom Groggin - Trevor Davis 02 6076 9510
North-East - Jack Hicks 0408 691 865
Mansfield - Bruce McCormack 0427 752 886

Overnight Camps (Berwick & Beveridge)
Bob 0402 658 012
Scott 0438 556 020

Media
Kim Stoney 0417 503 000
Chris Stoney 0417 503 528

http://www.algonet.se/~mattiasb/wwwboard//messages/1546.html complimentwhosewondered