June 23, 2008
Impressions of humanity in wilderness
We have an enlargement of this image printed on stretched canvas, hanging on the wall of our living room. In its abundance and purity, water underpins the richness of our rainforest home and this image beautifully captures the celebrity of its most central supply.
As a family, we spend a surprising amount of time discussing and enjoying impressions within the image, such as the somewhat maniacal moss-covered face at the centrepiece of the two major falls. Another, somewhat haunting depiction of what we agree appears to be a woman’s face, looks upward from the right-hand wall of the cascade towards the heavily-browed simian face to the immediate left of the upper fall.
In an absence of formal identity, I named these Bridal Veil Falls, for the splendid way that the water diverted to the left spreads, with such an even, parabolic descent.
In retrospect, I would have liked to have been able to provide a presentation service to this gorgeous feature deep within the Cooper Valley, but such an entitlement is vigorously prohibited, through application of the precautionary principle. Of course, being national park, public entry is an existing right, however, the provision of a guiding service is not allowed.
Ironically, I may be called upon to assist in the recovery of a lost hiker, along with perhaps another hundred or so volunteers, in an environment deemed too important to suffer the impact of a guide that might prevent the loss in the first place.
Posted by neil at 05:47 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
May 12, 2008
What is Wilderness? (Part 3)
"An infamous media type said, 'In essence we're a conceited naked ape but in our mind we're a divine legend and we see ourselves as some sort of God that we can walk around the earth deciding who will live and die and what will be destroyed and saved.' Wilderness has no gods or one almighty. All is equal in life and death and just simply being. The rich tapestry of a wilderness includes the naked ape, but does not sustain those that want to dominate it. It then becomes something else." Posted by: Travis at May 7, 2008 08:07 AM
Near Wentworth, Blue Mountains, photo taken April 27, 2008
Posted by jennifer at 03:02 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
April 02, 2008
Climate Change Less Threatening to Declared Reserves?
Last August, a panel of scientists from the Australian Greenhouse Office and the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), called on the federal and state governments to expand the number of nature reserves in Australia in a bid to protect animal populations from climate change.
Following on from Queensland’s climate-linked plan of doubling its declared reserves, the Federal Government has now pledged $180 million to expand the National Reserve System.
“Today’s announcement will help protect key habitats at a time when native species such as the mountain pygmy possum, tree kangaroos and hare wallabies need them most - as they struggle to adapt to the impacts of climate change,” Mr Garrett said.
WWF's Protected Areas Policy Manager, Dr Martin Taylor, said the $180 million funding boost was a promising step toward saving Australia's wildlife from a "decade of neglect".
"National parks and nature reserves are the proven best and most secure method of arresting declines of threatened wildlife toward extinction and buffering nature against climate change," Dr Taylor said.
A little over 11 per cent of Australia is presently reserved, which is apparently less than many developing countries. However, associating declared reserves with protection unfairly suggests Australia is eighty-nine percent unprotected.
The irony of the entire exercise is that it is underpinned by an environmental ethos, held by the majority and enunciated through the bidding of elected representatives, but only if others pay it for. As far as I know, there has never been a transfer of reserved land into private-ownership for improved protection. It has only ever been the other way. Australia incrementally increases its reserve system, leaving an ever-decreasing off-reserve portion.
Perhaps a more inclusive and cost-effective national approach would be possible if our elected representatives represented the protective interests of land-holders off-reserve.
Posted by neil at 09:53 AM | Comments (23) | TrackBack
February 26, 2008
Beyond Media Headlines: The Key Issues for the Macquarie Marshes
Media reports yesterday** correctly drew attention to the fact that there are levy banks within the Macquarie Marshes and that they are depriving key wetland areas of water.
But the stories went on to lump upstream legal and planned irrigation development that makes allocations for environmental flows with legal and illegal levies on grazing land within the marshes. Some levies within the marshes are currently blocking designated environmental flow water from reaching the northern nature reserve.
Some of the media reports suggest a need for more studies, but the solution may simply be to bulldoze levies so that environmental flow can get through to the nature reserve.
Other issues within the marshes that require action, rather than more studies include:
1. Preventing the trampling of bird nesting sites by cattle, and
2. Addressing the general issues of overgrazing.
The Macquarie Marshes is a large non-termial wetland in central western New South Wales covering about 200,000 hectares. Most of this area (88 percent) is privately owned and grazed. There are two publicly-owned nature reserves where cattle are excluded and which are Ramsar-listed, meaning they are considered of international importance for migratory bird species.
The most definitive recent publication on the ecology of the Macquarie Marshes is:
The Macquarie Marshes: An Ecological History
by Gillian Hogendyk
IPA Occasional Papers
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=683
You can see pictures of overgrazing at this blog post:
Cattle killing the Macquarie Marshes, 21October 2005
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000949.html
There are pictures of the illegal levies here:
More Water Won't Save the Macquarie Marshes, 28 March 2006
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001282.html
And for more discussion read:
Three Pressing Issues for the Macquarie Marshes, 13 July 2006
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001481.html
-----------------------------
** Yesterday’s stories include:
Report reveals illegal Murray-Darling irrigation. By environment reporter Sarah Clarke
Scientists say the flood plains are being sucked dry and there is no legislation in place to stop further development.
A new report has exposed major flaws in the management of key rivers and flood plains along the Murray Darling Basin. Satellite images of a key wetland in north-western New South Wales reveal more than 2,000 kilometres of earthworks have carved up the waterway. While some of the channels and levees may have been authorised, others are considered illegal and are diverting water into irrigation and farming.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/25/2171517.htm
NSW vows crackdown on Murray-Darling earthworks
The New South Wales Government says it will crack down on unauthorised earthworks in the Macquarie Marshes in the state's north-west. A report by the University of NSW found that more than 2,000 kilometres of channels, levees and dams are carving up the Macquarie Marshes and diverting water into irrigation and grazing areas.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/25/2171663.htm
Wetlands in a flap after the rains
February 25, 2008
Birds are winning the battle of the marshes, writes Daniel Lewis.
Wading through Monkeygar Swamp, with magpie geese honking in the sky above, even a vicious bite from the odd leech can't wipe the smile off Ray Jones's face.
There's enough water for significant bird breeding in his beloved Macquarie Marshes for the first time since 2000, and the National Parks field officer is on a high after depressingly dry years.
"When you see these geese taking off you can't help but smile," Jones says. A fellow parks employee recently told him: "This is the first time I have seen you smiling for years."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/wetlands-in-a-flap-after-the-rains/2008/02/24/1203788147733.html
'Water theft' threatens Murray-Darling
By DANIEL LEWIS & MARIAN WILKINSON - Australia
Monday, 25 February 2008
A MAZE of levee banks, channels and dams is stealing water from the state's flood plains and threaten to undermine the $10 billion Murray-Darling Basin rescue plan.
A year-long study by a leading wetlands expert also says environmental water stolen on the flood plain that is home to the iconic Macquarie Marshes has already caused enormous environmental damage.
The report says inappropriate development has continued for decades…
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/river-rescue-under-threat/2008/02/24/1203788147679.html
Flood plain development 'stealing water'
February 25, 2008 - 6:35AM
Levee banks, channels and dams are stealing water from NSW flood plains and threatening to undermine the $10-billion Murray-Darling Basin rescue plan.
The authors of a report on flood plain development on the lower Macquarie River say state and federal governments have turned a blind eye to water theft through flood plain harvesting, Fairfax reported on Monday.
http://news.smh.com.au/flood-plain-development-stealing-water/20080225-1ugc.html
'Water theft' threatens Murray-Darling
By DANIEL LEWIS & MARIAN WILKINSON - Australia
Monday, 25 February 2008
A maze of levee banks, channels and dams is stealing water from NSW's flood plains and threaten to undermine the $10 billion Murray-Darling Basin rescue plan.
A year-long study by a leading wetlands expert also says environmental water stolen on the flood plain that is home to the iconic Macquarie Marshes has already caused enormous environmental damage.
…. SOURCE: Sydney Morning Herald.
http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=48948
Posted by jennifer at 10:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 03, 2008
Blue Gums in Grose Valley Healthy After Back-Burning
Just over a year ago media reports indicated the Blue Gum Forest of the Grose Valley was “hanging in the balance” because of a wildfire made “more intense, unpredictable and extensive by massive backburning operations”.
I trekked into the forest today and was surprised and pleased to see a beautiful forest with little evidence of fire damage.
The Blue Gum Forest, Grose Valley, Blue Mountains, Australia, February 3, 2008. Looking to the south-east.
The Blue Gum Forest, Grose Valley, Blue Mountains, Australia, February 3, 2008. Looking to the north-west.
The Blue Gum Forest, Grose Valley, Blue Mountains, Australia, February 3, 2008. At junction of Grose River and Govett Creek, looking to the north.
As I struggled up the steep escarpment on my way out of the valley, I passed a couple descending into the valley and I asked if they were planning to visit the Blue Gum Forest.
“Yes,” replied the women, “At least what is left of it”.
Like me, and so many Australians, she believed the media reports that the forest had been badly damaged. As we passed I suggested she would be pleasantly surprised by what she saw.
Why has reporting in the popular press been so negative? Was the state of this iconic forest misrepresented as part of a wider campaign against back-burning?
-----------------------------------
Additional Notes and Links
Link to picture of burnt forest in Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-ghosts-of-an-enchanted-forest-demand-answers/2006/12/10/1165685553891.html
Link to earlier blog post with a question from Bill in Melbourne about the state of the forest:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002620.html
The Blue Gums in the Grose Valley are Mountain Blue Gums Eucalyptus deanii, here are some links to the more common Tasmanian Blue Gum, Eucalptus globulus:
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1702968.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/arr_html?Eucalyptus+globulus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus_globulus
Posted by jennifer at 11:27 PM | Comments (17) | TrackBack
September 24, 2007
Melbourne Benefits from Killing Barmah Brumbies
Public submissions in response to the Draft Feral Horse Management Plan for Barmah Forest close today.
The plan proposes the removal of horses from the Barmah Forest firstly by using lure and trap techniques over two years, which will commence following the approval of a final plan. The removal program would be reviewed annually and all feral horses are proposed to be removed from the Barmah Forest within five years of the program commencing. The involvement of key stakeholders will be through comment on this draft plan. The feral horse removal program will be managed jointly by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and Parks Victoria.
In a note from Angela Downey of the Great Divide Team:
Earlier this morning we received notification that the Victorian Government and their able assistants, not content with killing the Legend of the Man from Snowy River, by their banning of the Mountain Cattlemen and their Barmah counterparts, it seems now they are set to remove another icon of Victoria's heritage under the guise of saving the environment and questionable animal humanity reasons.On Monday members of Parks Victoria will set about removing 150 brumbies from the Barmah Forest which covers an area of 75,000 acres. It is claimed this small number of horses are causing severe damage over this huge area.
A decision was made to remove the animals from the park following this years harsh drought and with another to possibly to follow, with the implication that this small number of brumbies would place the environment and the resident native fauna under undue stress due to competition for feed and water. Many of the horses live in small family groups and are spread throughout the park. No doubt it has been a harsh year for them and many of the other animals.
However no mention has also been made of the contribution to the lack of feed made by other feral animals such rabbits, wild pigs, goats, foxes, dogs and cats all of which inhabit the forest. Such other feral animals often have massive explosive populations and cause direct and monumental damage to the environment.
An option of using helicopters with snipers on board to do the deed was considered but due to the potential of a similar outcry such as the furor over the Guy Fawkes National Park slaughter of 2000. During that episode many horses were shot but died a slow and agonising death from bullet wounds.
The Victorian National Parks propose to round up the Barmah brumbries, destroy any stressed and old animals on site and remove the rest to the abattoirs.
These animals would be obviously suffering due to the current dry conditions as would the native fauna. . They are more than happy to leave the suffering native fauna to their own devices in the Park while also making little impact on the removal of other feral fauna with populations of thousands which happily munch their way through tonnes of native flora and fauna, digging holes, slopping around in bogs, and bulldozing their way around the Park.
The removal of the Brumbies will have little impact on the environment of the Park. One has to question the governments motives in removing this small population of an Australian icon and part of our heritage.
If Parks Victoria are actually so concerned with the plight of the brumbies there are other options out there.
Further recommendations have been made by the Victorian Environment Assessment Council in its River Red Gum Forests Investigation Draft Proposals Paper (which states):
Domestic stock grazing has occurred in Barmah forest for several generations. The average of 2000 (summer) and 800 (winter) head of cattle agisted in the forest has been reduced in response to recent drought conditions, culminating in the destocking of the forest for the 2007 winter term. There are also 7 current grazing licences covering a total of 78 hectares and with a total carrying capacity of 112 Dry Sheep Equivalent that would be included in the proposed national park. Grazing with domestic stock is incompatible with national park status and will not be permitted in the proposed park. As well as domestic stock, Barmah forest is also grazed by feral horses and deer which, together with feral pigs, should also be promptly removed from the proposed national park to protect its highly significant natural values.
In Chapter 4 of the report, Social, economic and environmental implications, a candid expression of economic impact is made:
A team of consultants led by Gillespie Economics was commissioned by VEAC to independently assess the social and economic implications of VEAC’s proposed recommendations. The consultants concluded that the proposed recommendations would result in a net increase in economic value to Victoria of $92 million per year excluding the costs of environmental water. The breakeven price for environmental water would be between $1320 and $2880 per megalitre. Most of the benefits from the proposed recommendations result from non-use values for environmental protection, which are heavily dependent on adequate environmental water. These benefits would accrue mostly to people outside the Investigation area, especially in Melbourne, while the costs of the proposed recommendations would be largely borne within the Investigation area particularly in the areas near where public land timber harvesting and grazing are focussed. The towns of Cohuna, Koondrook, Nathalia and Picola are likely to be most sensitive to these effects, as they would be occurring in the context of the contraction of local economies and populations in these areas that has been experienced in recent years.
This is yet another abrogation of environmental responsibility in a seemingly endless succession, as defined within the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment 1992.
As people and communities are included in the definition of the environment, the threat of serious or irreversible socio-economic damage (as identified by the consultants) should bring the precautionary principle into play. Under the policy principle of intergenerational equity, the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations. And, environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, which enable those best placed to maximise benefits and/or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems.
Posted by neil at 10:35 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
September 09, 2007
The Cumulative Impact of Rainforest Research
In the late 1990’s, a scientific ‘pig-exclosure’ project was established in the Cape Tribulation section of the Daintree National Park. The project involved the construction of an 80 metre square fence, anchored aggressively to the ground with steel trimmer bar and pegs. The site selection encompassed much of the very restricted, endangered and previously studied laurel, Endiandra cooperana.
The purpose of the project was to collect comparative data, inside and outside the exclosure, to quantify the adverse impacts of feral pigs upon seedling recruitment rates of an endangered plant species.
Criticisms of the project at the time included the accessibility by piglets into the exclosure through the mesh squares, the obstruction to cassowaries in a known corridor, proximity to two roads and the contention that even blind Freddy could see that pigs were damaging to seedling recruitment rates.
Despite these concerns the project proceeded and there it remained for many years. Eventually, the land manager agreed to remove the construction, but was so under-resourced it dismantled only one corner section and middle panel on each side, leaving around eight 30-metres sections of fence in the rainforest, where they remain to this day.
In around the year 2000, another scientific study was carried out in the vicinity of the pig-exclosure project. This one sought to capture the primitive rainforest macropod, Musky-rat Kangaroo Hypsiprymnodon moschatus. The methodology required the placement of several hundred metres of plastic barrier through known habitat, stretched to form walls with strategic openings every thirty or so metres. The animals would familiarise themselves with the openings and after a period of adjustment, cages would be placed at the openings into which the animals would be herded by the research scientist. Once caged, they would be analysed and genetic material collected from hole-punched tissue from the ears of specimens.
More recently, another similar project was transferred to the same locality from rainforest in the Cyclone Larry affected areas. Different plastic barriers were constructed, for the same purpose, but this time the project sought to map the liberation of captured animals by gluing a cotton reel to the released subjects so that the thread would leave a variety of passages that could be compared relative to the adjacent roadway, to determine whether roads had a quantifiable impact on evasive mammal behaviour.
All very interesting projects, but why are the researchers abandoning their materials in the forest?
Posted by neil at 08:52 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
January 08, 2006
Mountain Cattlemen Defy Government Ban
Last June the Victorian State Government banned cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park. A protest website emerged at about the same time.
According to the most recent newsletter from this website:
Several small mobs of cattle are continuing to move slowly across the Alpine National Park. This is a week-long protest by many Mountain Cattlemen's families against the loss of their grazing licences and subsequent treatment by the Victorian Government.While the focus was on one of the small and symbolic herds yesterday, today it is becoming apparent that there are several groups of cattlemen, each with a small mob of cattle. This protest is clearly being supported by mountain cattlemen from all sides of the Alpine National Park, all wanting a return to alpine grazing.
The cattle and their drovers will be on the track for the next seven days as they travel to the annual Cattlemen's Get-Together to be held at Rose River near Whitfield next weekend. The cattle are not in the Park to graze, they are travelling through.
The protest is being fully supported by lobby group Country Voice and the Mountain Cattlemen's Association and many other groups concerned at the direction the Victorian Government is taking with public land and national park management
These small mobs are travelling on the original stock routes and bridle tracks across the Victorian High Country. The mountain cattlemen have been banished by the Bracks' Government from the Alpine National Park for its political gain but at Australians cultural expense. end quote
According to Peter Attiwell quoted at my blog post of 16th June last year:
The critics of alpine grazing use science to support the basic tenet that grazing is incompatible with use of the land as a national park, as encapsulated in the slogan 'National Park or Cow Paddock?'. The slogan is totally misleading. A cow paddock, once abandoned, will never return to the ecosystem that was destroyed to create it.In contrast, there is no evidence that cattle grazing in the High Country has eliminated rare and threatened species, nor has species composition or diversity been irrevocably altered. Indeed, 170 years of controlled cattle-grazing has left by far the greater part of the High Country in excellent condition. Clearly, at the long-term and landscape levels, cattle grazing over some part of the High Country can be accommodated within management plans to achieve specific goals without an irreversible deterioration in biodiversity. end of quote
It is interesting to ponder that grazing was only allowed in about 15 percent of the Alpine National Park. Many may argue that there should be no grazing in National Parks. But what about Ramsar Wetlands? Most of the Ramsar Wetland listed Macquarie Marshes is grazed and there is evidence that this is having a significant negative impact, click here for earlier blog post.
We have a very adhoc and political approach to environment protection in Australia.
Posted by jennifer at 11:49 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
December 15, 2005
People and National Parks: Are They Compatible?
The total area of land now under conservation protection worldwide has doubled since 1990, when the World Parks Commission set a goal of protecting 10 percent of the planet's surface. That goal has been exceeded, with over 12 percent of all land, a total area of 11.75 million square miles, now protected. That's an area greater than the entire land mass of Africa writes Mark Dowie in the latest issue of Orion magazine.
Mark writes that he was curious about "this brand of conservation that puts the rights of nature before the rights of people" and visited with tribal members on three continents who were grappling with the consequences of Western conservation and found an alarming similarity among the stories he heard.
He concludes:
"Many conservationists are beginning to realize that most of the areas they have sought to protect are rich in biodiversity precisely because the people who were living there had come to understand the value and mechanisms of biological diversity. Some will even admit that wrecking the lives of 10 million or more poor, powerless people has been an enormous mistake - not only a moral, social, philosophical, and economic mistake, but an ecological one as well. Others have learned from experience that national parks and protected areas surrounded by angry, hungry people who describe themselves as "enemies of conservation" are generally doomed to fail.More and more conservationists seem to be wondering how, after setting aside a "protected" land mass the size of Africa, global biodiversity continues to decline. Might there be something terribly wrong with this plan - particularly after the Convention on Biological Diversity has documented the astounding fact that in Africa, where so many parks and reserves have been created and where indigenous evictions run highest, 90 percent of biodiversity lies outside of protected areas? If we want to preserve biodiversity in the far reaches of the globe, places that are in many cases still occupied by indigenous people living in ways that are ecologically sustainable, history is showing us that the dumbest thing we can do is kick them out.
I don't think it is as simple as Mark suggests.
There are instances where even recent arrivals, for example foresters in the Pilliga-Goonoo region of north west New South Wales, have been excluded from forest areas they were sustainably harvesting. While there are indigenous groups who have access to, for example, power boats for hunting dugongs, and appear to be harvesting beyond the sustainable capacity of these populations.
I have some sympathy for Duke University's John Terborgh position which is, "My feeling is that a park should be a park, and it shouldn't have any resident people in it," he says.
According to Mark Dowie, John Terborgh bases his argument on three decades of research in Peru's Manu National Park, where native Machiguenga Indians fish and hunt animals with traditional weapons. Terborgh is concerned that they will acquire motorboats, guns, and chainsaws used by their fellow tribesmen outside the park, and that biodiversity will suffer.
I hope that the Machiguenga people do acquire guns and motorboats. I don't suggest that this be a reason for preventing their access to Manu National Park, but there will be a need to determine quota for sustainable harvest. And the only way to be sure any system is working is to have a proper monitoring program in place.
Posted by jennifer at 05:43 PM | Comments (20) | TrackBack
September 25, 2005
National Parks to be Baited with 1080
I was recently faxed through a summary of research findings on the impact of aerial baiting on spotted quoll populations. The report is now available at the NSW National Parks website here.
There seems to have been a collective sigh of relief that baiting with 1080 for wild dogs will now occur in some National Parks and that baiting will now be considered for other parks on a case-by-case basis.
Report findings included that:
Although some analyses are still outstanding, the available results from each of the three separate aerial baiting trials conducted by the DEC during the 2004-05 period, and from the work undertaken in Queensland during 2002-05, have demonstrated that mortality among known quoll populations is much lower than that predicted by previous non-toxic trials. However, quoll mortalities due to 1080 poisoning do occur, albeit rarely.It appears that quolls eat toxic bait at highly variable rates. More importantly, most quolls consuming 1080 dog baits survive. The consistency of these results across sites indicates little difference in the response to aerial baiting between distant quoll populations. Moreover, the observed low mortality rates due to 1080 poisoning are apparently not caused by an adaptation of quoll populations to repeated exposure to aerial baiting, but also applies to quoll populations in areas that have not had a recent history of aerial baiting.
Reasons for the lower than expected mortality of quolls in the wild are uncertain. It may be that, of the animals that consume baits, most have a higher tolerance of 1080 than would otherwise be predicted on the basis of laboratory-based trials (ie. they have a higher resistance). It is also possible that quolls regurgitate baits.
During any aerial baiting program, individual animals of a range of native species may be killed by 1080 baits including spotted-tailed quolls, brush-tailed phascogales and several species of dunnart and antechinus, native rodents, potoroos, brushtail possums and many species of birds. The recent research has shown that population level impacts on the species of greatest concern, the spotted-tailed quoll, is unlikely. However, it is possible that mortality due to aerial baiting may have significant impacts on small populations of quolls already suppressed due to drought, habitat fragmentation, disease etc. In addition, there is no information on the sub-lethal effects of 1080 on native species e.g. fertility and birth defects. On the other hand, aerial baiting which suppresses local fox and dog populations may benefit quolls in the area. Hence, the potential impact of aerial baiting on non-target species has to be assessed on a case by case basis.
After discussing the results and other published information, the Steering Committee agreed that aerial baiting can now be considered as an additional control technique where appropriate. However, in order to maximise effectiveness and minimise selection for bait-shy dogs, the Committee encourages the use of an integrated approach that employs a range of techniques e.g. ground and aerial baiting, trapping, shooting, exclusion fencing.
I read on Friday that a penguin colony off the coast of south-western Victoria is struggling to survive because of wild dog and fox predation. The breeding colony on Middle Island has been reduced from nearly 300 penguins to 60 according to the ABC Online report. A team from Deakin University are apparenlty monitoring population numbers. While I am all for more monitoring, it would be perhaps useful if the scientist also did some baiting, perhaps with 1080, when they return to the island in October?
Posted by jennifer at 10:51 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 11, 2005
Mountain Cattlemen Defiant
There was movement at the station for the word had passed around that the mountain cattlemen will graze their cattle in the Alpine National Park this summer. The move, announced at a rally in Bendigo today, is in defiance of new Victorian legislation banning the 170 year tradition.
I have previously blogged on the ban on cattlemen in the high country at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000668.html and also http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000635.html .
Posted by jennifer at 06:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 11, 2005
Whales, Dugongs & The Blue Pool
The Indigenous community in south-east Queensland is divided over dugong hunting.
According to ABC Online today,
Three Indigenous groups in north Queensland have agreed to stop traditional hunting for dugongs. The landmark agreement has been welcomed by Butchulla elder, Marie Wilkinson, who says her people have wanted a similar arrangement on the Fraser Coast for years. But Dalungbara elder from Fraser Island John Dalungdalee Jones does not support the idea. "Well, that is their prerogative but do not impose those same restrictions on us," Mr Jones said.
Following the thoughts and comments contributed at this web-log on whaling and my concern about the unrestricted indigenous hunting of dugongs, another marine mammal, I ended up writing something about dugongs and whales for Online Opinion last week.
You will see from the article that I am concerned that the hunting of dugongs not remain "the prerogative" of which ever indigenous community. Indeed Senator Campbell could learn from the Norwegians and the approach they take to regulating the harvest of minke whales. It appears much more sustainable than the approach taken by the Australian government to the harvest of dugongs, see
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3634 .
Neil Hewettt, a reader and sometimes contributor at this web-log, has also recently contributed a piece to Online Opinion on indigenous issues, see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3594 .
....................................................................
UPDATE 13TH JULY, 9AM
I received an email from an expert on whaling and delegate to the IWC conference with the following comments on my online opinion paper and other information:
Information on whale population estimates can be found on the IWC website - http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm#table Note that these are "agreed" abundance estimates by the Scientific Committee. Under the heading Humpback whales - Southern Hemisphere you will find the comment: "Rates of increase. East Australia: 1981-96 12.4% (95%CI 10.1-14.4%). West Australia: 1977-91 10.9% (7.9-13.9%)". Three comments on your on line opinion piece: 1) During this year's meeting of the Scientific Committee there was discussion of the quota for humpback whales taken in the Grenadines. The Scientific Committee agreed that the catch limit of 20 for the period 2003-2007 set by the Commission will not harm the stock which was estimated to number around 10,750 animals in 1992. See page 19 of IWC/57/REP 1 http://www.iwcoffice.org/meetings/reports2005.htm (A new abundance estimate for this stock is expected by 2007 but clearly, the IUCN listing is outdated and incorrect). 2) Your description of the method used by Faroese fishermen to kill pilot whales is outdated and inaccurate. I will send you an updated description of the killing method used and a reference when I am in my office next week. 3) Your comment that "perhaps also the Japanese [and Australian], governments could learn from the reasoned and scientific approach taken by the Norwegians" misses the point that in addition to meeting the four principles of the Norwegian harvesting, the take of whales under the special permits for research issued by the Government of Japan also provides valuable scientific information.
UPDATED 21ST JULY AT 12.50PM
Latest information on the Faroe Islands pilot whale hunt, including killing methods is available at the following web sites.
www.whaling.fo
www.tinganes.fo
Posted by jennifer at 04:19 PM | Comments (2)
June 20, 2005
End of an Era
The 170-year tradition of grazing cattle in Victoria's high country is over according to the Victorian Shadow Minister for Agriculture Philip Davis. In a press release last Friday he said, "In one fell swoop, the Bracks Government this afternoon successfully displaced generations of mountain cattlemen and their families, simultaneously erasing an essential part of Australia's heritage."
The day before, on Thursday 16th June, I received the following poem from Duane L Langley.
It was dark and cool in the vast of night when God decided now to strike
From within the dense and massive clouds he threw his multiple lightening pike
It hit the ground with blinding speed and sought the tinder bush
The searing heat completed it's feat and the flames headed North with a push
The stockman astride his well worn saddle saw this display of might
The sparks they flew from his horse's shoe as he pounded down through the night
He knew at once that he must ride hard to his mates at camp below
At the camp he reined in hard and fast, with "fire!" being his only bellow
The stockmen knew what they had to do as they climbed their mountain steeds
They raced as a group on back to the coop where the cattle had had their last feed
Two thousand head were soon being led to a two mile wide burnt scree
For it was hear that the land had been burnt as a plan for needs be the animals can flee
With the smoke and the sparks filling the air from the South the cattle were again on the move
For the flames were high on the ever glowing sky, but the cattlemen were now in a groove
They cracked their whips with lightening speed and drove their charges to flee
By mornings light by way of their flight they were all in the lea of the scree
For here the grass was green and lush and fire was stopped in it's tracks
The cattle were safe and horses relieved as the mountain men alighted their backs
All around wildlife roamed, safe from the wild red steer
Thanks to man and his managing hand, the fire was no longer a fear
2003 came another lightening spree, but the cattlemen were no where to be found
The wildlife headed again to the scree where safety and sanctuary abound
But a sign here stood from a greenie hood that lambasted the Mountain man caste
Wilderness area is now proclaimed for this spot so damaged in the past
As the animals read with a feeling of dread, the sign from modern man
They mourned the day that had passed their way, of the man with the management plan
They hunkered down, too tired to hop, knowing that all was lost
Their last thoughts as they burnt to death, where's the Mountain man, oh! what cost
Posted by jennifer at 03:35 PM | Comments (2)
June 17, 2005
Noongars Knew Best
The following essay is from, and by, David Ward of Western Australia. Thanks David.
Before Europeans arrived, Noongar people managed our south-west dry forests and woodlands very well without fire trucks, water bombers, helicopters, television journalists, concerned politicians, the Conservation Council, hundreds of firefighters, or the Salvation Army to give them all breakfast. They did this by burning frequently, in most places as often as it would carry a mild, creeping fire.
Even where there were no Noongars, most of the bush would have burnt frequently by unimpeded lightning fires, trickling on for months. Such large lightning fires continued up to the 1920s, before there were any Bushfire Brigades. They could travel a hundred kilometres before autumn rain doused them. Most of the landscape would have burnt as often as it could carry a fire. Fire suppression and exclusion are unnatural, new fangled notions.
Frequent fire made the bush safe, and promoted grass for yonka (kangaroo), and a host of bush tucker plants. It produced byoo, the red fruit of the djiridji, or zamia. Frequent light smoke germinated seeds, and provoked flowering of kangaroo paws and balga grasstrees.
Kangaroo paws and byoo are increasingly rare, under a muddle headed advocacy which claims that we should exclude fire from large bush areas for long periods. This phoney idea makes the bush very dangerous, as we have recently seen. Fire cannot be excluded indefinitely, and the longer it has been absent, the fiercer, and more damaging it will be.
Ecomythologists claim that, left alone, the litter will all rot down to enrich the soil. The truth, as any Perth Hills resident will testify, is that there is some decay in winter, but the summer blizzard of dead leaves, bark, and capsules is far greater, so litter builds up. After twenty years or so, there is a mulching effect, and build up ceases. However, by then most wildflowers are smothered and straggly, and most of the nutrient is locked up in dead matter. Frequent, mild fire releases the nutrients, sweetens the soil, and prunes the plants. Gardeners will appreciate that.
In the 1840s, the early West Australian botanist James Drummond wrote "When I was a sojourner in England, I never remember to have seen Australian plants in a good state after the second or third years and that, I think, is in a great degree owing to their not being cut down close to the ground when they begin to get ragged; how for the pruning knife and a mixture of wood ashes in the soil would answer as a substitute to the triennial or quaternal burnings they undergo in their native land, I am unable to say, some of our plants never flower in perfection but the season after the ground is burned over..."
There are many historical references to frequent, widespread burning by south-west Noongars. In 1837 Lt. Henry Bunbury mentioned "...the periodical extensive bush fires which, by destroying every two to three years the dead leaves, plants, sticks, fallen timber etc. prevent most effectually the accumulation of any decayed vegetable deposit... being the last month of summer... the Natives have burnt with fire much of the country... "
In 1975 Mr. Frank Thompson was interviewed about his memories of fire near the south coast, before the First World War. He said "You see, the Natives ...they used to burn the country every three or four years... when it was burnt the grass grew and it was nice and fresh and the possums had something to live on and the kangaroos had something to live on and the wallabies and the tamars and boodie rat ...It didn't burn very fast because it was only grass and a few leaves here and there and it would burn ahead and... sometimes there?d be a little isolated patch of other stuff that wasn't good enough to burn the time before, but as it burnt along perhaps there might be some wallabies or tamars ?those animals didn't run away from fire, they'd run up to it and you'd see them hopping along the edge of the fire until they saw a place where the fire wasn't burning very fierce..."
It is hard to imagine wallabies hopping along the flame front of the recent Karagullen fire, looking for a way through. Long fire exclusion is causing fires of unprecedented ferocity, and many avoidable wildlife deaths. The longer fire has been excluded, the longer the bush takes to recover when it is eventually, and inevitably, burnt.
Over the last decade, research in south-western Australia by the Department of Conservation & Land Management (CALM) and Curtin University into fire marks on hundreds of balga grasstrees has confirmed traditional two to four year fire in dry eucalypt areas. Ridges with pure jarrah burnt every three to four years, slopes with some marri every two to three years, and clay valleys with wandoo every two years. There would have been thousands of small refuges, in rocks or near creeks, which would have burnt less often, perhaps never. Recent fierce fires destroy these, and the fire sensitive plants they protect. The ecomythology of long fire exclusion over large areas, is destroying the very plants and animals it claims to care for. Equally guilty are those 'talking heads' in politics, and the news media, who unthinkingly promote ecomythology.
The oldest balga records go back to 1750, and show traditional frequent, mild fire until measles epidemics killed many Noongars in 1860, and 1883. In some places two to four year burning continued until the First World War. In others, it continued up to the 1930s, and even the 1950s. Some old Perth Hills families remember when any fire could be put out with wet bags or green branches. This is only possible when fires are in litter no more than four years old, with flames less than a metre high.
Far from destroying diversity, this frequent burning enhanced it, by creating a rich mosaic of different aged patches. Animals had both food and shelter, and wildflowers flourished. Today's muddle headed blanket fire exclusion leads to an eventual single, blanket, fierce fire, which simplifies the ecosystem down to a single age.
By insisting, through our political representatives, that CALM burn the bush more often, and more patchily, we will make it safer, see more wildflowers, avoid most animal deaths, and avoid dense, choking smoke from fierce wildfires. We will have to live with occasional light smoke from prescribed burns. If most litter were less than five years old, smoke would be minimal, and arson would be futile. All it could cause would be a mild, creeping fire, which would benefit the bush.
Think of the savings and benefits by working with nature, instead of fighting it. No more squadrons of aircraft, anxious home owners, and choking smoke for a week or more. The police could get on with catching burglars. More young Noongar people should be employed by CALM to help manage the bush with fire, restoring their culture and healing their self esteem.
Copyright David Ward
10th April 2005
Posted by jennifer at 09:00 AM | Comments (18)
June 16, 2005
Expert Advice on Alpine Grazing
If we care about the environment, we must also care about rural and regional Australia because this is where most of our environment is.
A lot of people in the bush (I use bush in the broadest context to include even rainforest dwellers) are extremely unhappy with how national parks are being managed/not managed.
The banning of cattle grazing in the high country has become a catalyst for the coming together of different groups in Victoria and the new Country Voice website.
This site includes an expert opinion on grazing in the Alpine National Park from x-University of Melbourne botanist Peter Attiwell. He writes:
"It is now critical that Parks Victoria clearly define goals for management of biodiversity. A critical goal for future management is the definition of appropriate burning regimes. The question should not be one of grazing or no grazing. The critical question is: what are our goals for management of ecological diversity and of fire?The critics of alpine grazing use science to support the basic tenet that grazing is incompatible with use of the land as a national park, as encapsulated in the slogan 'National Park or Cow Paddock?'. The slogan is totally misleading. A cow paddock, once abandoned, will never return to the ecosystem that was destroyed to create it.
In contrast, there is no evidence that cattle grazing in the High Country has eliminated rare and threatened species, nor has species composition or diversity been irrevocably altered. Indeed, 170 years of controlled cattle-grazing has left by far the greater part of the High Country in excellent condition. Clearly, at the long-term and landscape levels, cattle grazing over some part of the High Country can be accommodated within management plans to achieve specific goals without an irreversible deterioration in biodiversity.
There is no doubt that the opponents of grazing use science to achieve their end of stopping grazing completely (just as the opponents of timber harvesting in native forests will continue to pursue their aim until there is no harvesting in native forests). That is, there is no point of compromise, despite the fact that both the intensity and extent of cattle grazing has reduced dramatically over the years.
... Cattle-grazing in the Alpine National Park now covers less than 15 per cent of the area. Let us now stop quibbling and taking the high moral ground offered by this or that bit of science. The record stands for itself - the quality of the ecosystems of the High Country has not been destroyed by grazing over the past 150 years, and the cattlemen are hallowed within the image and folklore of Australia."
While Attiwell's opinion is respected, and on the Country Voice website, there is a lot of anger with 'expert scientists' generally as expressed in the following comment:
"As a long time resident of the Licola area, a landholder and a fire Brigade Captain with landholders adjacent and surrounded by the Alpine National Park to look after, I am just appalled at the level of scientific debate supporting the removal of Alpine cattle grazing. The so called science to support this has been non existent, less than honest or shonky at best, with I believe deliberate efforts to mislead.After the Caledonia fire of 1998, plots were fenced off around rocky outcrops, dead limbs, fallen bark and places where little grass ever grew, then monitored to see how they would grow. Botanists placed transect lines beside active wombat and rabbit burrows and on areas last burnt out decades ago as there was so much grass on the areas under study. "Expertise" was bought in from the NSW National Parks and Wildlife service - who had been repeatedly burnt out.
Decisions on grazing in burnt areas were made with vegetation surveys consisting of two drafts and a summary, all unsigned. A "Draft Internal Working Paper" was passed off as "scientifically credible information needed to determine management options for the area." This had no finding or conclusion, no indication of who did the work, or their qualifications and no references from text books on the methodology, which in places could have been little more than guess work.
The science was so bad even their own people on the "expert" panel to recommend on the return of grazing were critical "is the PV draft proposal a joke? Its appalling! I have read both drafts of the proposed methodology and, in their current state, neither would pass as first year biology assignments".
Grass fuel on areas burnt in 1998 is now at dangerous levels around sphagnum bogs, ancient single trunk snow gums and private land holdings and in two years would have carried a hotter faster fire. The risks from snow grass on places like the Wellington Plains can only be measured in how many times it is off the fire intensity scale over the extreme category. Much of this country that did not burn in 1998 because of grazing, would now carry a frightful fire from 4 to 16 times the extreme intensity. This is on areas where grazing was banned and not allowed to continue because of claims it had not regenerated enough, as there was too much bare ground.
A few years ago we were told by alpine ecologists that fires were not part of the ecology. Now that their management has failed, with the 2003 fires, we are told fires are a one in a hundred year event. If this is the best we are getting out of our universities they should close down the environmental sections and concentrate on turning out engineers, chemists and bushfire scientists where they have an impressive record."
L.Ralph Barraclough Target Ck Rd. Licola Ph 5148 8792. 14-6-2005
I am keen to post some text/opinion from those against grazing in the Alpine National Park, or perhaps the Macquarie Marshes?
Posted by jennifer at 08:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 29, 2005
Exclude Cattle from National Parks?
Cattle can destroy a landscape. The Victorian Premier last week banned grazing in the Alpine National Park on the basis that:
Cattle:
* trample streambanks, springs and soaks
* damage and destroy fragile alpine mossbeds
* create bare ground, disturb soil and cause erosion
* pollute water
* are a significant threat to a number of rare and threatened plants and animals and plant communities
* reduce what should be spectacular wildflower displays
* spread weeds
* cover the landscape in cowpats and spoil the enjoyment of the area for visitors.
Incredibly the areas that have sustained this 'degradation' associated with grazing for about 170 years, are so ecologically important, that the Victorian Government will now seek World Heritage listing.
A key government report acknowledges that "Seasonal high country grazing is a long and ongoing tradition both within the park and in areas of the high country outside the park."
The report suggests that this cultural heritage can be maintained and celebrated into the future in a variety of ways including "through books, poetry, films and festivals."
Imagine the outcry if the Victorian Government proposed to "maintained and celebrated" mossbeds through books and festivals.
..................................
Some Background and a Question:
I was interested to learn that grazing in the High Country has been increasingly regulated since the 1940s including a ban on sheep and horses and burning-off, restrictions on the length of the grazing season, maximum stocking levels set, and grazing progressively removed from several areas including the highest peaks.
According to the same Victorian Government Fact Sheet, 47 percent of the Alpine National Park has been licensed for grazing.
But according to member for the Central Highlands, Hon. E.G. Stoney, speaking in the Victorian Parliament last Wednesday, "The announcement of the total removal of the cattle from the park breaks a legislated promise to have seven-year renewable licences. The promise was made by the Cain government in order that agreement could be reached to create the massive Alpine National Park, and that happened in 1989. Part of the agreement was that cattle were to be taken off the higher exposed peaks on the north Bogongs and the Bluff. The cattlemen sacrificed vast tracts of grazing land, with 10 families losing everything, which meant 90 per cent of the new park was closed to grazing back then. The Bracks government has broken the agreement; it has now taken the remaining 10 per cent of the land for cheap political gain."
So up until now has grazing been allowed in 47 percent or 10 percent of the Alpine National Park?
Posted by jennifer at 04:58 PM | Comments (9)