Have you any ideas as to how a new fire fighting organisation might be started up? I gather from your articles that aircraft are crucial as well as early spotting of fires, which should be possible with current meteorological technology, fly-overs and ?satellites.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.
Comments
Similar undemocratic development in Ku-ring-gai (Sydney)
Take the following instance of a local resident protest in the Ku-ring-gai shire in Sydney's still leafy north shore which is dominated by national park:
Katrina Adamski of The North Shore Times on 28 May 09 reported "Angry crowd jeers as Planning Panel adopts town centre plans"
'HUNDREDS of angry residents packed a Lindfield hall to protest against the "sham plans’’ adopted by the Ku-ring-gai Planning Panel last night.
Up to 600 people packed into the Greenhalgh Auditorium at UTS Lindfield, many holding placards and banners. More than 100 people registered to speak but in the time allowed only 60 had a chance to air their views.
As the night wore on, residents grew angrier at the "flawed process’’ with most holding the opinion that their words would not make a difference to the outcome. After listening to people speak for three and a half hours, (chair) Ms Crouch said the panel members would adjourn for a few minutes before voting on the motion to adopt the plans. This was met with boos and jeers as residents cried out that they had wasted their night and started to leave the auditorium. Before the meeting started, Ms Crouch said the panel had held a series of community consultation sessions as well as reviewing more than 1800 submissions and meeting with resident groups.
During the following hours, residents spoke about ad hoc zoning, of impacts on their family homes, about the height, bulk and scale of development destroying the amenity of the area, and how Ku-ring-gai could be reduced to a slum.
When Ms Crouch said that no more speakers could be heard, one resident threatened to report her to the Planning Minister Kristina Keneally. But Ms Crouch said a large number of issues had been raised and proceeded to adjourn for a few minutes to "consider these issues’’. When they returned she thanked people for their "stringent opinions, ideas and suggestions’’. Ms Crouch then put the motion to adopt the plans and send them to the Planning Minister for gazettal and this was unanimously adopted.'
[Extract from The North Shore Times]
Withholding taxes in Australia where democracy is failing
Australian and state governments[1] are creating major political and budgetary problems by flooding the country with people when they are already unable to provide adequate water, transport, employment, land or housing. The vastly over-sold problem of funding an aging population has nothing on this kamikazi economic policy. Public private partnerships, corporatisation and privatisation are all failing hopelessly to attract private funding for (deeply unpopular) projects like salinisation, toll-ways, housing and socially and other financially costly major infrastructure. The industries and companies involved in such projects expect governments, State and Private, to fund their projects by raising taxes and increasing public debt. And Australia is already deeply in debt. Even though governments are increasing charges for most power and resources, private businesses based on the inflation of resources are still not viable and the world is in financial crisis.
For several years now NO government can claim a mandate to increase the population and charges and taxes to 'manage' water and power, because the electorate has never been asked to choose this as an option. Governments at federal and state level have misled Australians about the origin of our population problem by pretending it was something they were somehow obliged to 'manage', as if they had no responsibility in it, when in actuality, Federal and State governments have been running advertisements and internet sites encouraging people to migrate here in larger and larger numbers. At the same time there have been concerted efforts to encourage women to have more children here, by misleading women about economic prospects.
The commercial press and the ABC have consistently failed to inform the public of the government's role and the opposition's collusion in the democratically anathema business-case to overpopulate Australia. Although the media have begun to publish articles about how out of control the costs of population growth have become, they still fail to show that Australia has been willfully overpopulated to the extent that vital resources, especially water, are now dangerously overstressed.
All state and federal governments had a duty to advise the electorate of their activities in raising immigration numbers and that this would cause rises in all basic costs. All oppositions also had a duty to allow the public a choice to not go down the route of overpopulation, yet they have failed to do this and continue to fail to do this. All governments should have made this matter a voting issue at elections by using public money to give proper information where the commercial media did not.
The electorate is entitled to withhold taxes on the grounds that it has not had representation on these issues. The PAYE tax system makes it impossible for most wage-earners to withhold taxes, unless their employers do this for them. Many employers must be sick and tired of the increasing charges for rent, water and power, which raise their costs and lower their margins. Withholding PAYE tax would be a democratic option to bring the government to its senses.
The PAYE tax system was brought in around the time of the second world war. Unions and employers could attempt to cooperate with Australian citizens in withholding the PAYE tax at the request of salary earners, by organising resistance and legal strategy. Ratepayer groups could cooperate to assist residents to organise together to withhold their rates from councils which, by failing to limit building permissions, undemocratically commit residents to subsidising the costs of infrastructure expansion to accomodate unwanted and avoidable population increase.
[1] Yes, State governments are deeply involved in the people-importing business. It is not just the Commonwealth that has power and responsibility in this.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Ageing population clouds growth forecasts
According to the Productivity Commission, implications of population ageing in Australia means that said economic growth would slow during the next 40 years and consequently there would be deep deficits in government budgets for many years. Maybe we should encourage older people to voluntary lay down their lives for the benefit of the economy!
Further restricting access to entitlements such as the age pension and increasing the official pension age to 70 or 75 would lead to a further reduction in the living standards of pensioners who are already victims of our country's greed. Chronological age cannot be matched to health or needs.
Our population is socially engineered to be constantly increasing, fed by our excessive immigration that is stressing infrastructure and raising the costs of natural resources as they become less available. We can never keep a population young, and the numbers of older people will continually rise. We can't keep replacing older people without blowing out our numbers!
Better than the squeeze on vulnerable older people would be to not keep accommodating our population growth and the current spending on new arrivals.
Click to see the article in the Australian
We don't live in an economy, we live in a society of people of all age groups and globalisation means that our older and less productive senior citizens are being treated as a liability to "economic growth" rather than as humans who should be treated with dignity and respect.
Enivronmental NGO Silence
North American environmental NGOs are not constrained so much by the conditions imposed by their charitable status, but my their corporate donor base. For the American experience, just review the history of the David Gelbaum affair and the corruption of the Sierra Club. Or read Christine MacDonald's "Green Inc" about how the most prominent and high profile environmental orgs not only accept money from energy and logging corporations but allow the directors of these companies to sit on their boards.
In Canada the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy and the David Suzuki Foundation are beneficiaries of serious corporate donations. Suzuki of course, poses as a Great Crusader against climate change, playing to the Green yuppie gallery by his demand that MPs who deny anthropogenic global warming should be jailed---hardly the action of someone inhibited by possible government retaliation from the tax department. Yet he receives donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta's principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees' and Pensioners' Charity Trust. OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world, operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants. The Suzuki Foundation's 2005/06 financial report also lists 52 corporate donors including Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, Microsoft, Scotia Capital, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal. The latter three benefactors explain Suzuki's silence on the obviously negative environmental impact of mass immigration. The financial industry is fueled by mortgages to home-buyers---70 to 85% of whom are foreign-born.
The Sierra Club of Canada employs the second "solution" offered in this article to circumvent the intention of the law. They set up a dummy organization which they call the "Sierra Club Foundation" as a purely educational group and entice membership to it. Then they use the membership fees in a transparently discreet way to fund their political arm, the Sierra "Club" of Canada, which is blatantly partisan, even to the point of assigning "grades" to the political parties who contest an upcoming federal election. They assigned an "F" to the Conservative Harper government, even though the opposition parties did not actually promise to terminate the Tar Sands project and promised to hike immigration levels by 38% which, in practice, would mean that they would raise GHG emissions by 38%. I gave the Sierra Club an "F" on two counts. One, for their appalling blindness to the relationship of population growth to climate change and immigration to carbon emissions. And two, for tax fraud. There is no "Chinese Wall" between the Sierra Club Foundation and the Sierra Club. Money went from one hand to the other. Meanwhile, over 700 legitimate charity groups were disqualified for doing legitimate charity work in 2007. Groups that provided food banks, hospice care, trauma counselling etc. Many people who gave money to the Sierra Club Foundation believed that it was not to be used for partisan purposes. They were Conservatives, Liberals or New Democratic Party supporters who woke up to read the morning newspaper and found that the organization they donated to was endorsing the party of hyper mass immigration, the Green Party of Elizabeth May. How would you feel if you learned that the SPCA or the animal protection agency you donated to had forwarded your money to the Howard or Rudd government or to any of your political opponents along with their endorsement?
North American environmental NGOs are doing the work that corporations pay them to do. The job of Pied Pipers to green yuppie dupes, decoying them down inconsequential pathways away from the root cause of environmental degradation---mass immigration and rising fertility rates. Best to let them exhaust their members by using them as a fire brigade to put out the brush fires that constantly pop up everywhere. Save this forest, or that river, or this endangered species of the month. Fight symptoms, not causes. After all, corporations can suffer the odd environmental victory. Dedicated parkland can later be ravished with the stroke of a parliamentary pen. What is really important is that environmentalists stay silent while the nation is being flooded with more consumers and cheap labour.
Well, it looks like the environmental NGOs have kept their end of the bargain. Barking dogs that yap at the mailman, but ignore the crook who is robbing the house.
Tim Murray
A music award but nothing for the whales!
It is no doubt an honour that we have a Federal Environment Minister awarded the French Ordre des Arts et des Lettres joining the ranks of other famous artists. However, Peter Garrett was at the IWC Whaling conference and achieved nothing for the whales!
Our government promised to end the illegal slaughter, but has failed to achieve anything towards this aim.
There is no such thing as Japan's "scientific whaling" and it should not even be called such. It is commercial whaling, and due to our country's procrastinations and floundering, Iceland and Norway have also sought to make grisly profits from whale meat. Gigantic and gentle performing Humpbacks are also on the menu!
We need to see the promised "tough" action against Japan's whale poachers as diplomatic options have failed.
An "arts" award does Peter Garrett credit, but more than that we need to see an active and successful Environment Minister!
THE OECD and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report
THE OECD and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation have just released their combined annual agricultural outlook. It suggests that with one billion undernourished people in the world already, food availability must increase by 60 per cent in the next 20 years to overcome this mess.
With population growth, and one billion people undernourished already, "food availability must increase by 60 per cent in the next 20 years to overcome this mess". Easily said than done! With a global population crisis and less land to cultivate for food, increasing food production by 60 per cent is going to be a phenomenal challenge considering that we can't just have wall-to-wall cities and then the monoculture of farms!
Ecosystems have their own lifecycles, and we can't just keep destroying oceans, rivers, forests and biodiversity and still maintain that resources will just keep expanding!
A plant-based diet needs to be phased in world-wide. We also need a world sustainable population program before Gaia takes her own revenge on this "mess"!
ferals and natives and shooting
I think that part of the problem is the idea of making a sport out of feral animal control. Even 'scientific' control, under government departments, seems to be subject to the corruption of satisfying other targets - such as freeing up land for more development to profit from induced human population growth.
The government needs to clean up its act but encouraging the shooting of animals for sport in areas where we are supposed to be protecting them is really bad.
As for shooting leading to extinction in native animals - we know that the ferals are 'ferals' because they out-compete the natives. The native animals generally have a low reproductive rate or can only survive in habitats that are being reduced, whereas the ferals owe much of their success to the ability to survive in many or most habitats. Think of cats, rats, dogs, pigs, humans - they are very widespread. Not so the red kangaroo, the wombat, the quoll, the cassowary etc etc.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
'Extremism' thirsts for 24/7 open season for natives in NPs
Given there is a "plague of feral animals", so produce any independent zoological report that shows an effective control programme for a given feral species without adverse impacts on native species.
Our cereals could increasingly come from China and the US if Australian farmers and graziers don't start engaging in sustainable practices - just like they have been teaching at TAFE Agricultural colleges for some years.
Ferals can already be controlled on agricultural land. If feral control was the genuine aim of the Shooters Party Gamer Bill, why does this Bill deliberately add native animals in National Parks as new 'game animals'?
Smells like a Milat motive for natives. Such a Bill deserves tossing!
The problem of immigration is all one of scale
If a broad spectrum of the Australian population on a wide geographic basis received an unnoticeable small number of migrants, irrespective of origin that were committed to assimilation and that this was carefully planned by government over an extended period time, so that assimilation was seamless, then immigration wouldn't probably be seen as a problem.
But extremism with any policy, like mass accelerated immigration, as per the current Rudd Experiment is likely to have consequences and as we are experiencing, is.
Rudd' immigration experiment is extremist and it is turning a very tolerant society into an intolerant one.
Immigration a form of 'lemon socialism'
"After the immigrants arrive, they are at low wages, pay little or
nothing in taxes and demand full social benefit."
Immigration is essentially a form of 'lemon socialism' in which the costs
are socialised while the benefits are privatised. It provides huge
indirect subsidies to certain industries in the form of more consumers and
cheap labour, but imposes a significant burden on the wider population.
It is certainly true that immigration places downward pressure on wages;
indeed, it is impossible to argue otherwise.
And, yes, immigrants also place pressure on public infrastructure and
services without having contributed anything to the cumulative
intergenerational investment that gone into building up such
infrastructure and services.
There is also the impact of immigration on housing costs and our national
balance of payments - both major issues here in Australia.
Posted on behalf of RD. - JS
Scientific Whaling - no different to Ishii's depraved Unit 731
So, we think taking over half an hour for a whale to die from explosive internal harpooning is inhumane?
We think 'scientific' whale research is cruel and should be stopped, but not sure how?
Japan's claim that it is conducting 'scientific' whaling is as scientific as Japanese Unit 731 and its 'scientific' human experiments during World War II, commanded under microbiologist Lieutenant General Shiro Ishii of the Imperial Japanese Army.
Try this...
Those engaged in 'scientific' whaling should be publicly labelled as Unit 731 'Nana-san-ichi butai' in the Japanese media!!
This would be one damn nasty way to stop the whaling. How so? Read below extracts.
Activities of Unit 731:
A special project code-named Maruta used human beings for experiments. Test subjects were gathered from the surrounding population and were sometimes referred to euphemistically as "logs" (??, maruta?).[11] This term originated as a joke on the part of the staff due to the fact that the official cover story for the facility given to the local authorities was that it was a lumber mill. [SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-439776/Doctors-Depravity.html]
Vivisection
* Prisoners of war were subjected to vivisection without anesthesia.
* Vivisections were performed on prisoners after infecting them with various diseases. Scientists performed invasive surgery on prisoners, removing organs to study the effects of disease on the human body. These were conducted while the patients were alive because it was feared that the decomposition process would affect the results. The infected and vivisected prisoners included men, women, children, and infants.
* Vivisections were also performed on pregnant women, sometimes impregnated by doctors, and the fetus removed.
* Prisoners had limbs amputated in order to study blood loss.
* Those limbs that were removed were sometimes re-attached to the opposite sides of the body.
* Some prisoners' limbs were frozen and amputated, while others had limbs frozen then thawed to study the effects of the resultant untreated gangrene and rotting.
* Some prisoners had their stomachs surgically removed and the esophagus reattached to the intestines.
* Parts of the brain, lungs, liver, etc. were removed from some prisoners.
* In 2007, Doctor Ken Yuasa testified to the Japan Times that, "I was afraid during my first vivisection, but the second time around, it was much easier. By the third time, I was willing to do it." He believes at least 1,000 persons, including surgeons, were involved in vivisections over mainland China.
Weapons testing:
* Human targets were used to test grenades positioned at various distances and in different positions.
* Flame throwers were tested on humans.
* Humans were tied to stakes and used as targets to test germ-releasing bombs, chemical weapons and explosive bombs.
Germ warfare attacks:
* Prisoners were injected with inoculations of disease, disguised as vaccinations, to study their effects.
* To study the effects of untreated venereal diseases, male and female prisoners were deliberately infected with syphilis and gonorrhea, then studied.
* Prisoners were infested with fleas in order to acquire large quantities of disease-carrying fleas for the purposes of studying the viability of germ warfare.
* Plague fleas, infected clothing, and infected supplies encased in bombs were dropped on various targets. The resulting cholera, anthrax, and plague were estimated to have killed around 400,000 Chinese civilians.
* Tularemia was tested on Chinese civilians.
Unit 731 and its affiliated units (Unit 1644, Unit 100, et cetera) were actively involved not only in research and development, but also in experimental deployment of epidemic-creating biowarfare weapons in assaults against the Chinese populace (both civilian and military) throughout World War II. Plague-infested fleas, bred in the laboratories of Unit 731 and Unit 1644, were spread by low-flying airplanes upon Chinese cities, coastal Ningbo in 1940, and Changde, Hunan Province, in 1941. This military aerial spraying killed thousands of people with bubonic plague epidemics.
Other 'scientific' experiments:
Prisoners were subjected to other experiments such as:
* being hung upside down to see how long it would take for them to choke to death.
* having air injected into their arteries to determine the time until the onset of embolism.
* having horse urine injected into their kidneys.
* being deprived of food and water to determine the length of time until death.
* being placed into high-pressure chambers until death.
* being exposed to extreme temperatures and developing frostbite to determine how long humans could survive with such an affliction, and to determine the effects of rotting and gangrene on human flesh.
* having experiments performed upon prisoners to determine the relationship between temperature, burns, and human survival.
* being placed into centrifuges and spun until dead.
* having animal blood injected and the effects studied.
* being exposed to lethal doses of x-ray radiation.
* having various chemical weapons tested on prisoners inside gas chambers.
* being injected with sea water to determine if it could be a substitute for saline.
* being buried alive. (This practice included infants.)
[SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731]
Petition against REPCO Rally law
There is a petition against this injust and undemocratic law, but it can only be signed by "Residents and Current/Prospective Visitors to the Tweed and Kyogle areas." This is just as offensive as the State law against protecting the National Park from the race. The Green Caldera National Park is a World Heritage area. If the world cannot sign to get the Australian government to protect it, surely Australians everywhere ought to be able to place pressure on the NSW government to stop the race.
Here is where people can go to sign if they are eligible: http://www.petitiononline.com/NRG01e/petition-sign.html
Oz has a fascist big population policy
Yes,
I think that APop hoisted SPA and Tim Flannery on their own petard by coming out with calls for a population policy for a BIG population, with incredibly high immigration. This has come to pass with continuous lobbying by members of the Growth Lobby and Kevin Rudd's summit came out and said that they wanted to have a certain population in 2020 - and gave the Citizens - as opposed to the paid-up lobby groups - NO SAY AT ALL in the matter.
It was certainly a laugh to hear Mr Rudd claiming in China that Australia has a 'robust democracy'. Nothing of the sort.
Here is where our Federal population policy comes from Scanlon report underpins threat to Australian democracy. But there are also State population policies, which you can read about here: Melbourne 2008: Life in a destruction zone Check out 'Growth Lobby' in our 'site tags' for a group of other articles on this theme.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Problems ordering "The Howard Legacy"
RD, I am unable to order "The Howard Legacy" through the link you have posted. I have added the book to my shopping cart, but can't see how to proceed to the checkout, that is, when I use the (Apple) Safari browser.
When I use Firefox, it complains that my browser doesn't allow cookies, when it has been set to allow cookies, so I can't even reach first base.
Can you help?
Can you suggest how i might otherwise get a copy?
Thank you.
Stop bad town planning outcomes
Our household has been affected by bad town planning decisions. Yarra City Council is hiding behind Melbourne 2030 to justify it poor planning decisions. Overcrowding, noise, lack of parking controls, undesirable neighbors urinating from three storey balconies right in front of our eyes are just a few issues we have to thank our Yarra City town planners for.
During a recent IDAC meeting for a planning application for former Yarra City Councilor Paul D'Agostino (Labor) the committee unanimously carried the motion to approve a permit for a four storey apartment block in a tiny North Fitzroy backstreet 18m wide. There is nothing new about apartment blocks in the North Fitzroy street that the application was proposed for. However a large group of objectors did want Yarra City Council to apply some restrictions to the permit, namely to reduce the number of levels from four to three, which prior to this application, was the maximum number of floor levels permitted in this compact street. The objectors also wanted the committee to address issues of potential parking stress which was considered and issue by the objectors. Needless to say, Steve Jolly (Stephen Jolly) was first to move that Paul D'Agostino's building permit be approved. The other Yarra councillors followed.
See also: urbanplanningyarra.blogspot.com.
It's not about immigration. Its about unbridled greed.
The wealthy use immigrants to break their countrymen's ability to command a working wage. If you object to this, you are called a racist. They say Australians won't do the work. Of course not! And neither will the immigrants child. Are you going to immigrate the entire labor force every 20 years.?
After the immigrants arrive, they are at low wages, pay little or nothing in taxes and demand full social benefit. You subsidize these immigrants and dilute your own benefits. Your corrupt politicians may even ask you to provide subsidized housing for "low income families". Don't do it. You are simply subsidizing greedy employers and ruining you own opportunities for meaningful employment. If you force the immigrants to demand a living wage watch how quickly greedy employers loose interest. Watch how the money flows. The greedy get the money and the politicians pass the burden on to the taxpayers.
It's all over the world news about Aussie women now working as prostitutes in record numbers to get by. How gutless can Aussies get? Does anything matter to you? Stand up to your politicians and their backdoor lobbyists.
(My emphasis - JS)
Australia's de-facto population policy
"What is conspicuous by its omission is any information on immigration policy, planning, objectives, let alone the holistic leadership concept of population policy."
I would argue that the Federal government does have a de facto population policy - bring in as many people as quickly as possible. It is an unspoken policy rarely enunciated in public. Aware that ongoing mass immigration is generally unpopular with the Australian public, federal politicians on both sides of the political divide have assiduously avoided developing an open policy by means of electoral and other consultative mechanisms, preferring instead to devise immigration policy behind closed doors. Immigration policy is conducted as if it were none of the general public's business.
Such an approach has allowed successive federal governments to avoid explaining why they believe Australia needs to be running one of the largest, if not the largest, per capita immigration programmes in the world.
If Australia was to have an open and honest debate about immigration and population, I am certain the case against ongoing immigration-driven population growth would prevail. As far as I can see, there is no convincing justification - economic or otherwise - for the ridiculously high levels of immigration that successive federal governments have inflicted on this country. For the general Australian public, mass immigration brings much pain with little gain. It drives down wages, pushes up the cost of housing, strains our public infrastructure and services, worsens urban congestion, increases our national carbon emissions, exacerbates our water scarcity problems, leads to the clearing of more land for urban sprawl, adds to our national current account deficit, undermines social cohesion, erodes our shared sense of nationhood, and seriously degrades our quality of life in general.
The sooner the issues of immigration and population are brought out into the public domain, the sooner Australia can work toward implementing an immigration and population policy which actually serves the national interest.
Frosty incorrect on this point
Frosty writes, "Australians must ask themselves if they wish to import the poor of the world to become the new entrenched poor of Oz". He is in error to say that we are importing the poor of the world. The growth lobby which drives the high immigration in Australia targets the well-off and well-qualified. Australia is not, in fact, importing a new poor strata; it is importing an international rich class and that class is part of the making of a new disenfranchised, poorly housed, casually employed, class, composed largely of people born here.
The reason that the growth lobby imports rich people is because it wants to create competition for land, housing, water and power - the things it invests in for private profit.
In the US a large part of the incoming diaspora is from central and South America - notably Mexico - and most of those people are poor. In Australia poor immigrants are mostly a thing of the past. The only stream of poor people now coming permanently to Australia are the refugee and asylum stock - an insignificant proportion of the vast numbers of 'cash cows' currently entering this country, sponsored by big shopping centers (at a cost), by hospitals wanting doctors and nurses, infrastructure engineering firms in the business of building roads etc and the construction and mining sectors.
There are many things wrong with this traffic from the point of view of the immigrants too. They are 'shaken down' by entrepreneurs wanting them to finance projects; they are shaken down by financiers looking for projects to finance. How? Because the immigrant is after permanent status, whereas the financier is out to screw a victim.
As for the exploitation of foreign students and the displacement of local students at the universities - who also invest in land and housing for students - it is indeed shameful.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist.
home page
Possums have become a garment export industry in New Zealand
Don't joke, our native animals that got to NZ somehow, now as ferals face commercial killing and export profiteering.
Visit: http://www.possumnz.com/
'Possum New Zealand'
"Five years ago in a small leather shop in Auckland’s CBD, Ms Possum was born. Her mission? To create beautifully designed, hand-crafted Possum products.
With over 20 years commercial design experience, Ms Possum’s designs are unique and innovative. The influence of her previous work as designer for the New Zealand licencee of Christian Dior, can be seen in the stylish range. The combination of these factors has seen Possum New Zealand's products exported all over the world from Europe to America."
The Brushtail Possum fur has a hollow fibre to ensure that all products are ultra warm. Available in 19 different natural and dyed colors, there is something for everyone in Possum New Zealand’s eco-fur collection.
Description
The Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus Vulpecula) was introduced to New Zealand from Australia about 150 years ago. Nocturnal marsupial mammals, Brushtail Possums are about 50cm long, with grey or brown fur, sharp claws and a bushy tail. After gestation, the young live in the mothers pouch for around 4 months.
The Environmental Impact
A prolific breeder, the Brushtail Possum has become the greatest threat to New Zealand’s native flora. Numbers are estimated at 70 million, and they devour 8 million tonnes of vegetation annually. That equates to 20,000 tonnes (or 4000 truckloads) every night!
In addition to competing for food, Brushtail Possum’s also eat or destroy the eggs and chicks of endangered native birds.
Action taken to Protect the Environment
The Department of Conservation i(NZ) in conjunction with central and local governments has spent millions of dollars trying to contain the problem, through humane trapping or baiting. However, full eradication will never be possible.
In addition, harvesters are collecting the animals for processing by tanneries, and it is from this non-farmed source that Possum New Zealand sources its A-Grade hides. All fur has been harvested from the wild.
Utilizing a National Pest
Possum New Zealand believes that a commercially driven approach is an effective way of containing this problem. We have developed an innovative Possum fur range of funky, colourful garments, hats, scarves, bags and accessories, in a myriad of finishes and hues.
Wear your possum fashion with pride: “Buy a Possum and save a forest!”
----
For an Australian, demonising and exploitation of our native possum as a feral is disturbing isn't it? But the possum is in New Zealand. This sends a poignant, if not repugnant, message that locally indigenous animals, plants and indeed people only retain natural rights, respect and protection in their country of origin. But take any of these out of their home and they are considered unnatural - 'ferals', 'weeds' and 'ethnics'...victims of slaughter and open to commercial opportunism.
How dare New Zealand!
My question is that as a close neighbour of Australia, why has New Zealand not sought co-operative arrangements to repatriate Australia's possum's back to Australia?
If the Kiwi were found in Australia, would we use its pelt for scarves?
The concept is abhorent and New Zealanders should hang their heads in shame.
The ignored correct but difficult repatriation solution has made way for expedient commercial opportunism.
Has this 'commercial opportunism' become 'The Kiwi Way' and so lowering ts population of its worth as a society?
Australia lacks pride in its own because it does nothing.
Australia lacks a 'Sustainable Population Policy'
RD,
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to this core national issue.
I am an advocate for birth rights having precedence in shaping any nation's direction. Moreso indigenous rights deserve the ultimate precedence, as indeed England has recently realised and as let in blood in Peru. 'Charity begins at home' and 'think global act local' remain two fundamental aphorisms that should underpin any nation's policies respect for its national values.
Yes, our own young people deserve opportunities. We must realise that we are competing in the global village that has become all the rage yet equally all the threat. If we leave our lifestyle to global markets and treat global demand as a numbers game, Australia like all smaller nations will be directed by the most populous nations. On this basis, China and India seem destined to impose their cultures over less populous nations. Utilitarianism is wrongly overruling local rights.
This is not a racial issue. It is about preserving and establishing a national competitive advantage in a climate of globalisation.
The problem is that legacies of lost opportunities and of staged national decline have been ignored as like a 'pass the parcel' game in Australia's population policy - but if only we had one. In our first world society in 2009, Australia can only muster an 'immigration policy' - a narrow subset of what ought to be a population policy. Population drives all social policies, yet it is ignored. A national 'SUSTAINABLE POPULATION POLICY' [SPP] in Australia would indicate our federal government actually acknowledge the serious implications and costs allowing uncontrolled, undirected population growth has on all of its other policies. Long term, the implications for Australia, with its laisse faire neglectful approach, is heading towards decending toward a second world society - a class society like New Zealand has become.
Complacency is a big enemy facing Australia and then we go and spend $26 billion on defence. On Australia's population policy, Prime Minister Rudd's lack of interest, direction and policy on population is as dangerous as Neville Chamberlain's policy void that failed to recognise the threats of World War II.
We are subject to 'immigration in our time' and witnessing systemic incapacity of all state infrasructure and public services to cope. Meanwhile Rudd opens the Ruddgates and justifies to himself - aint I a Christain samaritarian for doing so? Who can fault myselfless gesture?
If only Australian politicians had an appreciation of the 'long term' concept, i.e beyond the election cycle. Australia's immigration is controlled at federal level under the Australian Government's Department of Immigration and Citizenship and like all governments they have given it an acronym. Visit: www.immi.gov.au.
What is conspicuous by its omission is any information on immigration policy, planning, objectives, let alone the holistic leadership concept of population policy.
What is disturbing in the light of all levels of government in Australia, except those few extremely dense highrise councils like Sydney CBD, is that the growing population demand is not being met by public infrastructure and services. Worse is that as one heads farther bush, the public infrastructure and services vanish, as if the original Australians and the original Australia has less value than the newcomers to the cities. If one examines government funding distribution of public infrastructure and services it is all about looking after the cities. Government cost accountants favour this because they apply the utilisation test where in cities more resources are benefiting more people living close together. The unit cost of service provision is always lowest in highrise CBDs. They feed this metric to the incumbent overstretched polly who happens to be in power and it becomes policy and in NSW, a principle of the 'State Plan' which drives every NSW government decision.
Go to Rudd's 2020 Summit on immigration policy initiatives at www.australia2020.gov.au/final_report/index.cfm. The focus on population and immigration was watered down at this summit swamped by inadequate time and smothered beneath other popular issues like CLIMATE CHANGE, WATER, SUSTAINABILITY, CITIES and YOUTH SUMMIT.
In fact, the only reference at Rudd's summit to 'population policy' was under the sub-heading 'Disagreements', where a need for, and the direction of, a population target was mentioned. A mention is as good as this central issue got.
Since I only have one possum
Since I only have one possum (sadly) it doesn't sound like an army. I agree with you, it is reassuring to hear him. It's such a hard life for animals in the wild and I look out for not only the possum but also the wallaby (who shows up very rarely) and the two or three purple swamp hens (or whatever they are). They don't seem to be having much luck in getting their chicks past the horde of predators waiting with open fangs (eels, foxes, pythons, goannas, kookaburras, wild dogs, what have you ....) all hungry for their next meal. Same with the ducks who live on the dam by my house. We are lucky to still have wildlife. The powers that be are doing their best to wipe them out while pretending to be protecting them with all kinds of ineffectual conservation bills that they never enforce.
"It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products”
~ Steve Irwin
Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangar
Whaling Conference
It is sooo sad that such wonderfully intelligent and inspirational creatures as the whales and dolphins are treated so poorly and without respect for their Gifts to the World.
Miranda mulch
Fortunately there is no longer anything to stop us criticising Miranda Devine's ill-based opinions, which the Australian promotes so enthusiastically. On candobetter.org we have a number of articles with arguements, on far more specific terms than Mirandas', which can show that Miranda has gone off on a rather injurious frolic. See for instance "Victorian Bush-fires: ABC 7.30 Report ignores facts, creates scapegoats" and "Responding to incorrect fire information by joining the debate" and "Comments on recent fire-management in bush-fire areas" and "Greens, logging, forest fires and malaria" and "Deforestation drys continents - new theory explains how" What do you expect of journalists in the mainstream press? Once journalists were selected from the best writers and thinkers, but since the 20th century they have become syndicated and dumbed down merely to sell real estate and other products, to finish up as packaging for fish and chips and garbage. Although you can also mulch them, it would be altogether better if we just didn't chop the trees down in the first place. In fact, you could look at the whole thing this way: Miranda Devine writes for crummy newspapers which use up a lot of trees for paper. Cutting down trees causes drying of landscape and predisposes our environment to more bushfires. Miranda Devine must take personal blame for deaths in bushfires. She could help the bushfire effort therefore by stopping writing.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Howard's immigration legacy
"Our educational institutions are back doors to residence in Australia, and our high immigration program is partly justified by "skills shortages"! Why don't our own young people get opportunities?"
I recommend you track down a copy of a book entitled The Howard Legacy: Displacement of Traditional Australia from the Professional and Managerial Classes by Dr Peter Wilkinson.
In the book, the author examines how Australia's federal immigration policies, in particular the policy of granting of permanent residency to full fee-paying foreign students who complete a degree in Australia, is effectively depriving native-born Australians of what should be their birth right - access to the educational institutions that their forebears founded and financed.
According to Wilkinson:
Australian politics has a set of largely unspoken bipartisan beliefs and policy directions whereby:
• We believe that our own citizens do not have sufficient innate ability to make Australia a prosperous knowledge economy, so we need immigrants of high cognitive ability.
• We can skimp on educating our own children and compensate by bringing in immigrants with the advanced education which is necessary for the knowledge economy.
• Even better, they must pay for that education in Australia, so that the government can cut grants to the universities for educating Australians.
• We are comfortable with letting the children of recently arrived immigrants have unfettered access to our premium schools and universities, displacing children of long standing Australians from the prestige universities and the lucrative professions.
• We are not concerned that universities discriminate against Australian students by lowering the standard for overseas students, who can then apply for a visa on the basis of the conceded pass.
• We are comfortable with introducing an economy dominant ethnic minority at the expense of long established families.
• We are not concerned that the combination of the economy dominant Chinese and increasing trade pressures will place Australia under the influence of superpower China rather than the USA.
possum footwear
Not high heels. They remind me of a small army wearing boots running across the galvanised iron roof and I enjoy the sound. They also make amazing calls like out of breath banshees. Nothing more homely and reassuring than possums on the roof, as expected and unexpected as the rain. When I hear possums on the roof I know that this little part of the world (my home) is still alright.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Robert Browns comment
Robert Brown and Roy Smith are the Shooters Party members here is what Robert has said about the bill.
"My Bill does not allow hunting of native animals in National Parks.
That would be ( as it is now under the NPAct 1974) the Minister for DECC's call ....and her call alone. My Bill simply removes the impediment to her in the existing G&FAC Act of obtaining the benefit of volunteer conservation hunters hunting Ferals on National Parks Estate."
There was an accurate article in the Australian newspaper yesterday. Here is part of the article.
"The bill that would allow regulated hunting in national parks to eliminate feral animals or cull animals such as deer.
Unlike in Victoria and South Australia, hunting on public land in NSW is limited to state forests."
Supporting RSPCA is supporting Corruption - animal control for $
RSPCA Qld incorporated in December 1999 and are a business trading in pets – Federal Court Decision.
RSPCA Qld have police powers to seize property using warrants and charge people under the Justices Act. Defendant’s Negotiated settlements can be payments of as much as $300,000. This is the worst sort of corruption. Enter a person’s property, take their property then make them pay such that they lose their home and everything they worked for and accumulated in their long hard working lives. Google “ruth downey” or “rspca dark side”.
This RSPCA “approved farming scheme” will creat more opportunities for RSPCA to exploit their Policing Powers for $. This should be a warning to every farmer – do not participate, it will make you vulnerable to being exploited by RSPCA for $hundreds of thousands.
RSPCA a private business has corrupted government into giving them an Act of Parliament to administer without any supervision – The Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. Google “Stanford prison experiment” to see what happens to a small group given policing powers without supervision – they go rogue. Then Google “rspca corruption” or “ruth Downey” or “rspca poodles” or “rspca dark side” to learn how rogue RSPCA have become. RSPCA is a “Stanford Prison Experiment” with a money motive let loose on the community by Government. It will fail and eventually be revealed as corruption of the worse type. Google “flying pig” to see how ridiculously and extreme RSPCA are in their abuse of their power.
With Ruth Downey they shot and killed her healthy cows, many were feeding calves and there was hay there to feed them, then had her found guilty of animal cruelty and fined Ruth Downey $300,000.
RSPCA Qld kill 12,000 dogs a year and say they care for animals. There are cases where RSPCA have seized every animal owned and cared for by an old lady, killed all of them, then charged her with animal cruelty and negotiated out of court settlements where RSPCA get a $200,000 payment. A corruption of the worse type condoned and supported by State Governments.
Supporting RSPCA is supporting corruption. RSPCA have bullied government into giving them an act of parliament "Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 Qld" Police powers without supervision. Google "stanford prison experiment" to learn why RSPCA have gone rogue. Then google "rspca corruption" or "rspca poodles" or "ruth downey" to learn how rogue RSPCA have gone.
RSPCA have the power to make people pay big time. fines + legal fees of over $300,000 - RSPCA can take everything a person has.
Feral Animals BIll
The native animals listed as game animals have been done so as they are, I believe animals which are commonly shot on NPWS native animal control permits. At the moment only the owner of the land or employees are allowed to shoot animals on the permit and all animals shot are not allowed to be moved. If they are listed as game animals Game Council hunters will be allowed to do the shooting and they will be allowed to remove animals but this is not compulsory. As ducks and Kangaroos have a lot of good meat on them hunters do not want them wasted. Just calling them game animals does not change their protection status. They are still protected animals and require NPWS permits as now to kill.
The board is made of mostly people from hunting organisations as it is their members who take the Game Council test to get their restricted licence and then have the right to book and hunt in open forests.
National parks will only be declared public land if the bill passes. The government still has the right to open areas for hunting or not. They also decide on species of animals which can be hunted, as they do now in state forests.
Trained and qualified hunters are those with a restricted licence from the Game Council. This is required to hunt in any of the state forests now open and it would be the same system in any open NP.
When a forest is booked to hunt a permit is printed out which must be carried at all times. It states conditions such as no hunting from sunset to sunrise and also has a map showing the area allowed and any exclusion area, which there are usually a few.
Shooting is a way of reducing pest numbers. No method is available which will eliminate these animals. Poison campaigns can reduce animals quickly, but can not be sustained and there is no definite result, as dead animals are rarely found, and non target animals are killed too. Shooting has been proven to work all over the world. DOC in NZ has set densities which deer need to be kept bellow and this is maintained with hunters. South Australia has been very successful in controlling goats in the Flinders ranges using hunters.
I don't know much about the dog side but I believe pig dogs are allowed to bail up pigs and are a very efficient method of removing pigs. Other dogs are scent trailers or pointers for deer.
HECS fees and globalisation
As a mature-aged student who missed out on an opportunity to go to university when younger, I enrolled at university and accepted that I would pay HECS fees and that we didn't have to pay interests. To my horror, I find that there is no interest to pay, but there is an index, really an interest under another name, and the amount continues to accummulate! I have no hope to pay back this huge amount, $23,000 +, and it is continuing to rise! I will just have to make sure I die without assets!
Young people are prevented from a university education because of massive HECS fees, and this includes TAFE now in Victoria. Places are short because due to the over crowding of courses by international full-fee paying students. Youth Allowance is limited too, so it depends on parental generosity.
Our educational institutions are back doors to residence in Australia, and our high immigration program is partly justified by "skills shortages"! Why don't our own young people get opportunities?
Our ANZACS fought patriotically for Australia, but the Australia they would have known is not the culture we have now. We do not even have a shared common history or culture any more. Globalisation is giving minority groups power of the majority, and our values have been fragmented, yet most people are totally oblivious and kept busy with their own life quests. What does the RSL have to say?
Bill's purpose is to include native animals as 'game animals'
Chris,
In response to your reply above:
Your first point of three parts:
1.1 You claim: "The bill would not give anyone the right to shoot native animals"
1.2 You claim: "Rules for killing native animals are not being changed"
1.3 You claim: "Declaring them game animals only allows game council hunters to do the shooting and remove dead animals instead of leaving them where they fell as now."
I direct you to the following site where the complete Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2009 Bill is available: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/bill/gafacab2009320/
Schedule 3 at page 17 lists the native animals deemed to be 'game animals'. Read this and explain how this does not negate your points 1.1 and 1.2. Then explain where in the Bill it requires shooters/hunters to 'remove dead animals instead of leaving them where they fell as now'?
2.1 You claim: "The Game Council is a government body not private."
Yes, Chris you are correct on this one. The Game Council NSW "is a statutory authority of the NSW Parliament, established under the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 and its associated Regulation of 2004." (SOURCE: http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/portal.asp?p=AboutGC2). I have made the correction in the article, thank you. I had assumed the small house in Orange, NSW which houses The Game Council, was a private residence. It doesn't appear very accessible to the public.
However, I point out that the Game Council comprises membership dominated by representatives of private hunting interest groups. Of the following current council members the following 16 members, only 4 are government public servants accountable to the government of the day - Eric Davis, representing Minister for Primary Industries, John Willey, Rural Lands Protection Board, Adrian Harte, Director - Department of Lands and Nick Roberts, Forests NSW.
1. CHAIRMAN: Cr Robert Borsak, Australian Hunters International.
Councillors:
2. Stephen Larsson, Australian Deer Association.
3. Eric Davis, representing Minister for Primary Industries.
4. John Willey, Rural Lands Protection Board.
5. Rod Drew, Field & Game Australia.
6. Dr Tony English, Australian Veterinary Association, NSW Division.
7. Dr Murray Williams, wildlife management scientist.
8. George Kourt, Hunters & Fishermans Association of NSW (Artemis).
9. Douglas Shupe, Federation of Hunting Clubs Inc.
10. John Mumford, GameCon NSW.
11. John Pond, Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (NSW).
12. Daryl Venables, Australian Bowhunters Association.
13. Adrian Harte, Director - Department of Lands.
14. Nick Roberts, Forests NSW.
15. Dr Rob Mulley, wildlife management scientist.
16. William Murray, NSW Aboriginal Land Council.
3.1 You claim: "There is no shooting of native animals in national Parks proposed in the bill." Yet, cleary, the stated purpose of this Bill is for "an An Act to amend the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 to make further provision with respect to the management and regulation of the hunting of game; and for other purposes." Does it not? The Bill details that 'game animals' include listed native animals per Schedule 3, which I draw your attention to this list on this website. They include many native birds, quails and kangaroos, etc.
3.2 You claim: "The bill will allow the government to declare some areas in some parks available to trained and qualified hunters to kill feral animals."
Killing feral animals by shooting may be an effective method of controlling feral animals. Buy where is the DECC science to support this? Your claim of "trained and qualified" hunters needs clarification. Where is this provided for in the Bill?
3.3 You claim: "There is no spotlighting or night shooting allowed in any of areas of public land, by Game Council hunters."
Where is this provided for in the Bill?
4.1 You claim: "Why is the picture of Ivan Malat in the article?"
Well, Milat was a licensed competition shooter. In police interviews he referred to a shooting range in the Belangalo State Forest he knew of and perhaps used.
(SOURCE: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2004/s1239470.htm)
Milat was probably a member of a local shooting club, perhaps the Bowral Pistol Club situated in the Belangalo State Forest or with the Southern Highlands Rifle Club? As such, Milat would have been eligible to have been one of the licensed shooters/hunters under this Bill before being convicted of his crimes. This example of a licensed competition shooter does not engender public confidence in the shooting and hunting fraternity to be trusted to self-regulate itself and attract law abiding citizens and carte blache access to National Parks for shooting!
Message: Exclude all native animals as 'game' and prohibit the use of dogs in all hunting and shooting and you will have me starting to listen to proposals by The Shooters Party to control feral animals. But as for controlling feral animals in National Parks in NSW, this is an ecological management matter for DECC to be held accountable for.
Feral and Native animals.
Let me get this strait, you say the people shooting feral animals will "ensure that their past time is extended by making sure the supply continues"
But on the issue of shooting native animals "As for native animals, our record of conservation is abysmal, and at least native birds and animals should be safe from gunmen in what bush is left in our country."You imply it will lead to extinction.
These two assumptions are contradictory. "Shooting introduced animals ensures they will continue survive, while shooting native animals leads to extinction."
As the bill is not about shooting native animals it is irrelevant, but the shooting of introduced animals will reduce their population therefore help native animals. There is no control method which has so far been found to eliminate feral animals, they all reduce the numbers as shooting will. The only difference is that this bill allows trained and licenced voulonteers to do it instead of the taxpayers paying for it.
Give credit where credit is due
In comparison to the almost countless crimes of the NSW Labor Government, not giving the Shooters Party all that it has demanded may seem minor by comparison.
Nevertheless, whatever may be the underlying motives of the Rees Government, it is a positive step and should be acknowledged as such.
So, I myself would not have chosen the term 'backflip'.
That term seems to imply that not backing away from its outrageous stance of giving to the Shooters Party everything it wants is in some way preferable to waht has happened, when clearly it is not.
It is also reminiscent of the way corporate newsmedia reports such issues.
They tend to praise 'strong' leaders such as in Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew who doggedly persist with completely unpopular policies such as the asset fire sale, because they claim to know what is best.
If they give in to puplic opinion, they are depicted as weak and indecisive.
Personally I would welcome any 'backflips' by Bligh and Fraser on the fire sale question.
Shooters Party bill
I would like to correct some errors in your article.
* The bill would not give anyone the right to shoot native animals. Rules for killing native animals are not being changed. Land owners will still have to get the permits to kill problem problem native animals from the National Parks and Wildlife service as now. Declaring them game animals only allows game council hunters to do the shooting and remove dead animals instead of leaving them where they fell as now, to feed feral animals such as foxes and pigs.
*The Game Council is a government body not private.
* There is no shooting of native animals in national Parks proposed in the bill. The bill will allow the government to declare some areas in some parks available to trained and qualified hunters to kill feral animals.
*There is no spotlighting or night shooting allowed in any of areas of public land, by Game Council hunters.
One other question I have, is why is the picture of Ivan Malat in the article. The ironic thing about that is that if while he was committing his crimes in the Belangalo State Forest, it was off limits to hunters and anyone with firearms. Now it is one of the forests open to Game Council Hunters. I can see a different outcome for him and his victims if the forest was open to hunters then. If he had come across someone who was hunting while he was committing his crimes he would have been likely stopped earlier, saving many lives.
Shooters Party should be banned
That's interesting, Sheila. I can see why they came into existence. However it seems that the need for such a party is passed.
How hypocritical of them to be against government interference and then be in such control of governments in such sneaky ways (virtual blackmail) to get what they want which is then to be enforced on unwilling people!
I am also against the term 'recreational' hunting. How can an act destroying life use the term 'recreate' to describe it? Are they taking an animals life and creating it into another species? It should be called what it is i.e. killing animals for sick fun.
How can establishment of the NSW Game Council, legislation allowing specifically licensed hunters to hunt on public land; government funding of shooting clubs, establishment of regional shooting complexes; recognition of membership of a hunting club as a "genuine reason" for obtaining a firearms licence; extension of minor’s permits from ages 18 to 12, be considered achievements of any value to the rest of society who opposes hunting?
After this recent debacle the Shooters Party should be made defunct and illegal. Clearly they are trouble mongers with undemocratic intent. You might as well have a Child Pornography Party for pervs since it seems the only thing they advocate is hunting and what is the point if the majority of people are against it? They shouldn't be allowed in office.
"It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products”
~ Steve Irwin
Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangar
Ex Prime Minister Bob Hawke said the same thing!
While he was our PM, Prime Minister spouted about multiculturalism ad nauseum, but now he has retired he has the luxury of stating that one of the biggest challenges in our time is human over-population! (Andrew Denton show, the Elders). Pity he didn't think about it before! It seems that he and former Environment minister McNamara both have the luxury of hindsight! Maybe there is some conspiracy is governments, and the media, about topics NOT to mention, such as immigration and optimum population size.
Feral animals is a human caused problem
Animals want to breed and survive, as we all do. The problem of feral animals is due to careless of humans who abandon, desert, release deliberately and allow to escape from enclosures. Leaving shooters to the job of managing feral animals and killing for sport will not solve the problem. Being human, they will ensure that their pasttime is extended by making sure the supply continues and the problem is not "solved". Giving recreational hunters access to the parks under the guise of pest control could exacerbate a problem the policy is meant to solve. There is evidence from all around the world and it is clear that recreational hunters rarely, if ever, contribute usefully to control programs because it is a conflict of interests. As for native animals, our record of conservation is abysmal, and at least native birds and animals should be safe from gunmen in what bush is left in our country. There should be special theme parks with simulated hunting, but nothing is killed.
I don't think most of you
I don't think most of you tossers understand the plague of feral animals. Hunters do respect native animals, it's the unlicenced shooters that cause the dramas and shoot anything that moves. where do you think all of your cereals come from? straight out of a box? If the feral animals aren't hunted then alot of your staples will be destroyed and farmers will be forced off farms. Looking after the environment is one thing, but being an extremist is a joke.
Political crisis NSW today - shooters party
Yes, Chris.
The devil is in the detail, and I didn't have time to analyse it - just posted it, hoping for some comments and maybe that someone else would write an article analysing the Lib policy more closely.
However the NSW Legislative Council has actually closed down for today. Apparently, since the Feral Animals Control Bill didn't get up, the Shooters Party has been voting against the government continually and the government cannot get any policies or business through! This article below in the SMH is where I heard about it. It would be really good if someone in the field out there would tell us some more about this. The mainstream press will have a field day and try to get the Libs in, but they are not much different from the ALP now. We need a coalition of new independents, to open up the parliament to some democracy. The Greens are okay, but Family First and the Shooters Party look to me like well-financed spearheads to get policies in that the usual lobbies cannot get from the two big parties.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/night-of-the-long-bell-rees-faces-new-cri...
"Night of the long bell: Rees faces new crisis
Andrew Clennell
June 25, 2009 - 12:18PM
The NSW Parliament has descended into chaos this morning, with the Government pulling the plug on the Legislative Council last night to avoid having its plan to sell off NSW Lotteries put to a vote.
The Rees Government is now facing a full-blown crisis to get any legislation through the Legislative Council.
The opposition claimed this morning that such a move to "collapse" the house had not occurred since the 1920s.
The crisis has risen because the Shooters Party has been voting against the Government all week after cabinet failed to back the Shooters Party's push to hunt in national parks.
With the opposition and Greens opposing the Lotteries privatisation, the Government needed the support of the two Shooters Party MPs.
The decision by Premier Nathan Rees and Deputy Premier Carmel Tebbutt to oppose the Shooters' legislation was opposed in cabinet by Treasurer Eric Roozendaal, who wants the $500 million proceeds from NSW Lotteries.
Last night, as it became clear to the Government it was losing every vote, the only minister in the upper house, Tony Kelly, walked out of the Legislative Council at 12.36am, leaving government legislation unconsidered. [...]" The rest is here.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Shooters Party, about
From their site at The Shooters Party
About Us
The Shooters Party is an Australian political party. It is registered for Federal elections, and for state elections in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.
The party came into existence on May 2, 1992 when the New South Wales Government proposed laws preventing citizens from owning self-loading firearms or firearms for personal protection. It was founded by John Tingle, who was elected to the New South Wales Legislative Council in March 1995 as the party representative. Tingle resigned in May 2006, and was succeeded by businessman Robert Brown as the party’s sole representative in the Upper House of parliament.
The party’s policies are not entirely focused around firearms. It asserts that every law-abiding citizen should have the right to own and use a firearm for legitimate purposes, including self-defence. It strongly supports recreational hunting, and laws giving shooters access to land for hunting. It also has policies relating to personal freedom, and reduction of govermental interference in citizens’ lives; as well as the need for five-year reviews of all legislation. The party’s motto is "Reclaim Freedom." It actively supports recreational fishing, four-wheel drivers and other outdoor users.
The Party counts among its achievements, a number of succesful Bills, including those giving rights of self defence to any citizen, anywhere, with immunity from civil or criminal liability; providing extra penalties for attacks on vulnerable people; giving families of homicide victims the right to be heard in court; establishment of the NSW Game Council, and legislation allowing specifically licensed hunters to hunt on public land; government funding of shooting clubs, and establishment of regional shooting complexes; recognition of membership of a hunting club as a "genuine reason" for obtaining a firearms licence; extension of minor’s permits from ages 18 to 12, etc. The Shooters Party also assists firearms organisations.
Before the federal election of 2004, the Shooters Party was deregistered by the Australian Electoral Commission for failing to contest a federal election for four years. It was re-registered after this election.
The South Australian 2006 state election saw the Shooters Party run two candidates for the Legislative Council, Robert Low and Michael T Hudson, preferencing the Family First Party as well as the One Nation Party. The Shooters Party received 5 991 votes out of 1 055 347 voters enrolled, which is 0.6% of the vote, with a 0.08 quota. Neither candidate was elected.
McNamara and the Wiggles
It is a pity the former Minister didn't actually DO SOMETHING while he was the Minister. He went from making speeches, to total silence as Minister, and now back to making speeches again. All we got from the Minister was "change your lights bulbs, run your fridge and the air-con a notch warmer, and pump your car tyres up."
"Every little helps" he kept telling us, while at the same time approving the 17 billion dollar motorway to the airport, and OK-ing the expansion of our coal industry, and lying to the people of Mount Isa about their exposure to lead, which his office has been covering up for decades.
"Would anyone like me to talk about Peak Oil ?"
Good Speech Menkit
Thats a very good speech Menkit, Im sorry you were not allowed to present it. The attitude that exists in many conservation groups is that we have to go softly, softly, or we upset people. So what? Let's upset them!
We dont have time to pussyfoot around, we are on a very limited time span, to being able to continue to exist on this Planet. Forget the so-called conservation groups, I urge you to put your considerable talents elsewhere where they will do more good. Cheers, Pat
Great speech Dorothy
Great speech Dorothy. Pity you couldn't speak for the urban electorate, since what you said applies as much to them.
Sheila Newman
Feral Animals Control Bill
The Liberal party seems to support most things in the bill but dont know it.
*The bill does not make for Forestry and DECC officers to approach hunters. They as well as police National Parks rangers and Game council officers will enforce rules and check on hunters.
*The Minister has full power in the bill, to declare or not any area they see fit. They also decide on which animals can be hunted.
*Farmers and their families and employees are not affected at all by the bill. They are exempt on their own property.
*Live bird trap shooting has been banned from the 70's. This bill does not change that.
It needs to be remembered that the earth was made for humankind"
Why would they pass such legislation? Because Labor could then rely on the Shooters to pass their evil Planning reforms! However, we have Labor, Fred Nile of the Christian Democrats and the Shooters Party passing each other’s legislation in some cosy deals. At least John Howard did the right thing with his automatic firearms amnesty after the Port Arthur massacre, but now more people are to be empowered with guns!
What is outrageous is that Rev. Fred Nile, as a Christian minister, can support the use of weapons against sentient creatures, and corruption of power? How can his Faith, that supports compassion, a Living God Creator and sustainer of all life, allow him to consider the slaughter of animals for fun as legitimate? Where is his responsibility as a steward of Creation, his respect for God's handiwork, the magnificence of the Earth that was made "good"? (Genesis ch 1). It is humans that have brought havoc and corruption to the planet, due to sin and disobedience, and this wayward politician/Christian is supporting the killings of our beautiful native birds and animals- all in the name of recreation!
The Invasive Species Council agrees that feral animal control is very important, but concludes there is no evidence to support the claims that recreational hunting is an effective or low cost option. Hunters will propagate more animals to kill!
According to the Christian Democrat Party's website: It needs to be remembered that the earth was made for humankind.
With such self-centred anthropocentric attitudes, it seems that the "earth" and its non-human creatures can be traded in for human society's "advancement" at whatever cost!
Keep up long-term vision
Thanks, Tigerquoll, for keeping on about this subject, which will be right back with us in Victoria in just a few months.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Bushfire bunkers past and present
Aime's initial article did not pretend to be the last word, but it was great food for thought. Joan Webster's responses and comments are most informative. James also makes good points. I would like to hear more from Joan about the design of her above ground shelters, but also about the old fashioned timber worker bunkers that were large and well ventilated and sheltered enough to securely shelter a number of people in the middle of the forest. How deep, how big?
I also know that Aime lives in an area which was severely deforested for gold mining in the 19th century, where the trees have only grown back sparsely and spindly. The area has no topsoil to speak of and only sparse grassy tufts, but it is full of mine shafts, held up by timber and dug in rocky strata.
It seems to me that these mines could be prepared as bunkers, bearing in mind, of course, the need to safely shore up timber and allow for enough ventilation. They could also be linked up.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
An easy solution, Tigerquoll
I agree, we should not eat our native animals AND feral livestock is wrecking our environment. According to the U.N. report 'Livestock's Long Shadow' the livestock industry is the most destructive industry, producing more greenhouse gases than the entire transport sector (cars, trucks, buses, trains, planes, ships).
Therefore the best solution is not to eat animals at all. We are designed to be 100% herbivore so by only eating plants (veges, grains, beans, fruit, nuts, seeds) we will be healthier and avoid diseases of civilisation. At the same time, we help the planet and the animals.
That is the best ethical solution I can see if only people would cut the umblical cord with the traditional meat/dairy diet.
"It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products”
~ Steve Irwin
Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangar
Let them build up the coast...
Anonymous, you seem to have lost the point. It's about dwindling biodiversity due to habitat destruction caused by humans. Better to build up on the coast and leave some space for the few remaining species left than to encroach on their territory with all our chemicals, noise, tree-felling and cars. Please read my speech to the council on biodiversity and see why our survival depends on protecting the entire ecosystem.
As for Cr Milne, she happens to agree with us. Why else would she be in her position if she didn't? I just wish more councillors were willing to fight for the environment instead of wanting more economic development at the cost of our biodiverse environment.
In case you haven't noticed, humans now number almost 7 billion and we are in plague proportions! Not all living beings are equal. We take and give nothing back. Other species take and give back.
"It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products”
~ Steve Irwin
Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangar
No hunting wildlife
Does the NSW government seriously want Australia to become like the US where guns are the norm and killing for fun is completely acceptable? Intimidation is not a reason to legalize brutality. Protect all Australians - Reject the Bill.
Address human overgrazing and the kangaroos will be fine
It is vital to bring zoological science into mainstream discussion on Australia's habitats. I refer readers to:
'THE IMPORTANCE OF REFUGE HABITAT IN THE LOCAL CONSERVATION OF STRIPE-FACED DUNNARTS SMINTHOPSIS MACROURA ON ARID RANGELANDS, by
ANKE FRANK AND TODD SODERQUIST.
Abstract:
"ANTHROPOGENIC change to Australian habitats accelerated rapidly during the late 1800s as sheep grazing spread across the continent. In particular, intensive grazing in arid and semi-arid regions is believed to have vastly altered vegetation communities, triggered extensive soil erosion, and reduced shelter available to small mammals, thus increasing their vulnerability to predation (Morton 1990). It is not surprising, then, that since European settlement 32 species (42%) of mammals inhabiting the arid zone of Australia have become extinct (Landsberg et al. 1997), and many others have suffered major range reductions or are currently considered widespread but rare. This faunal collapse was due to multiple factors (Burbidge and McKenzie 1989; Morton 1990), but the most consistent predictor of marsupial decline is geographic overlap with domestic sheep (Fisher et al. 2003).
While overgrazing is a serious broadscale problem, the destruction of naturally occurring pockets of highquality habitat probably played a critical role in the extirpation of species that relied on refugia for survival during droughts (Morton 1990). Domestic grazing continues on approximately two-thirds of Australia, while less than 5% is dedicated to nature conservation (Ehmann and Cogger 1985).
SOURCE: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AM05075.pdf
What about kangaroos?
Thank you so much Sheila for that article - very hopeful. One comment I have is on the following statement:-
“We will oppose this and introduce other amendments aimed at genuinely managing the real environmental and other threats posed by feral animals - not Australian native species.
What about the so-called threat that one native animal species poses to grasslands and endangered lizards? I speak, of course, of the grossly maligned kangaroo, which deserves as much protection as all the other native animals. To blame it for overgrazing when we have five times more sheep that eat four times as much grass and far more damaging to the environment than kangaroos ever were, is ludicrous.
People still continue to believe the lies being fed to them that kangaroos are in plague populations, which is utter rubbish. Go to http://www.stopkangarookilling.org and see what I mean.
"It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products”
~ Steve Irwin
Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangar
Native fauna targeted in Feral Shooters Bill
Be clear, the Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2009, Schedule 3, Part 2 lists the following Australian native fauna as free 'game':
Native Ducks:
Australian Shelduck (or Mountain Duck) (Tadorna tadornoides)
Australian Wood Duck (or Maned Duck) (Chenonetta jubata)
Black Duck (or Pacific Black Duck) (Anas superciliosa)
Blue-winged Shoveler (or Australasian Shoveler) (Anas rhynchotis)
Chestnut Teal (Anas castanea)
Grass Duck (or Plumed Whistling Duck) (Dendrocygna eytoni)
Grey Teal (Anas gibberifrons)
Hardhead Duck (or White-eyed Duck) (Aythya australia)
Pink-eared Duck (Malacorhynchus membranaceus)
Water Whistling Duck (or Wandering Whistling Duck, Whistling or Wandering Tree Duck) (Dendrocygna arcuata)
Native Quails:
Brown Quail (Coturnix ypsilophora)
Stubble Quail (Coturnix pectoralis)
Native Birds:
Australian White Ibis (Threskiornis molucca)
Black Swan (Cygnus atratus)
Common Bronzewing Pigeon (Phaps chalcoptera)
Galah (Eolophus roseicapilla)
Little Corella (Cacatua sanguinea)
Long-billed Corella (Cacatua tenuirostris)
Purple Swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio)
Straw Necked Ibis (Threskiornis spinicollis)
Sulphur Crested Cockatoo (Cacatua galerita)
Topknot Pigeon (Lopholaimus antarcticus)
Kangaroos:
Eastern Grey Kangaroo (Macropus giganteus)
Euro (Macropus robustus)
Red Kangaroo (Macropus rufus)
Western Grey Kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus)
If the proposed legislation is genuinely and solely to control feral animals, the NPWS must first answer these questions:
Why are native animals included amongst the ferals?
What action in fact has the NPWS undertaken over the last 20 years to control ferals in National Parks across NSW?
Which measures have been successful at dealing with the target species and which have not?
Which measures have caused a detrimental impact on non-target species?
What interstate or overseas model/case study does NPWS rely upon to justify why shooting is the preferred method of control?
What standard of identification test is imposed on would be feral shooters?
What standard of marksmanship is required and what NPWS-approval system would be in place?
What monitoring is to be conducted of these shooters and by whom?
What happens to the carcasses to prevent disease?
If NPWS was serious about controlling ferals it would have a permanent programme to specifically deal with the key threatening processes that involve ferals, namely to target:
1. Competition and grazing by the feral European rabbit
2. Competition and habitat degradation by feral goats
3. Herbivory and environmental degradation caused by feral deer
4. Predation by feral cats
5. Predation by the European Red Fox
6. Predation, habitat degradation, competition and disease transmission by Feral Pigs
SOURCE: DEC, http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/pas_ktp.aspx
These species and these species only need to be the primary target. Professional contract shooting may be an option, but it is not for weekend warrriors.
The solution must be science based not sport based.
According to the Australian Wildlife Conservancy "Australia has the worst mammal extinction record in the world – 27 mammals have become extinct in the last 200 years. No other country or continent has such a tragic record of mammal extinctions."
Shooters Party bill article misleading
You seem to have got most of the facts right about the bill, but then put a radical animal liberation and discriminatory slant on them.
The NPWS are in charge of managing our National Parks and they should continue doing it. The Game Council are another government body the same as the NPWS, just that there expertise is in managing animal populations not parks. For that reason the GC should manage things such as permits to control problem animal populations using the same procedure to set numbers and permits as now. The NPWS will then have more time to concentrate on managing National Parks.
Your next part on opening up National Parks for hunting is misleading as it implies anyone will be able to hunt anywhere. The legislation only gives approval for the government to open an area in a National park if it sees an environmental benefit. The government still chooses when and where, and only Game Council licenced and trained hunters can participate.
Game reserves are another issue and are legal in all other states except NSW. The claims about these are also misleading as they are present in other states and have none of the claimed problems.
The reason it being illegal to approach hunters is that protesters have been interfering with people going about their legal business. It is to avoid situations such as in Victoria recently, where protesters stole legally shot ducks and interfered illegally with others. The safety issue was alresdy brought up before huting in State forests was started and all fears were unfounded. The same system of policing will be used as in NSW State Forests for the last 3 years. All hunters will book before hunting and are required to Carry the written permission at all times while hunting. Police, Game Council staff and NP rangers will have the right to check that written permission at any time. You then make many discriminating comments about hunters being unable to identify species and polluting the bush. It is unfounded discrimination like this that leads to racism.
If you are so concerned about the possibility of someone who had to book to go in the NP, and a record of them being there kept, possibly littering, how do you feel about bushwalkers being unregulated. Any of those bushwalkers could leave rubbish or light a fire and we would not even have a permanent record of them being there.
Lastly your last comment about Australia having the world’s worst record for wildlife extinctions. Over 38% of our mammal species have been driven extinct since 1778. This is indeed a terrible figure and the control of feral pests is the main way to prevent more extinctions. NPWS has had many years to try all methods of pest control and has achieved little. Don't you think it is time to try a holistic approach and allow community volunteers to become involved. That is what this bill will allow and I can only see benefit in removing feral pest animals from out National Parks.
NO PREFERENCES TO LABOR IN 2011 if Shooters Bill goes ahead
My letter to ALP Ministers (with an appropriate variation to media)
I am outraged at the Shooters Bill to shoot native animals in national parks. This bill needs to be thrown out in its entirety. This bill trashes our national parks, animal welfare, public safety, the democratic process and Labor's 'green' standing.
If you read the bill the Game Council itself will set quotas for all the native species listed, not the NPWS! OUR WILDLIFE IS BEING PRIVATISED. Our native species will effectively classified as game animals. There's no provision in the bill for the Game Council to provide the scientific evidence for setting quotas.
The next most dangerous part is opening up of national parks for 'game' hunting. Also you will be aware of private game reserves being set up for canned hunting. They will breed up animals and birds just for shooting and then shoot them in a confined space. Hunting dogs and bows and arrows are allowed. This exposes their lie about being "conservationists". They, as we know, merely shoot for the excitement of killing. National Parks would no longer be a safe refuge for native animals already encroached upon by humans.
Furthermore, it would be illegal to approach hunters to verify if they are licenced or illegal. Who would police these hunters? Can we trust them to identify endangered species? Won't their 4 wheel drives, lead bullets, 6 packs, trash and cigarette butts pollute remote ecosystems and potentially cause bushfires?
Australia has the world’s worst record for wildlife extinctions. Over 38% of our mammal species have been driven extinct since 1778. With politicians like Ian Macdonald trading our native animals for Shooting Party votes to privatise Lotto is it any wonder our species extinction rate climbs?
Anyone who wants to enjoy National Parks must now do so at their own risk. Tourists come to see our unique native animals and flora, not to dodge bullets and rednecks! The tranquillity of the natural world would be shattered by the sound of exploding guns hitting animals or whizzing past us. Are we going to stand by and let this madness unfold as our beautiful country turns into a hunters' paradise where nobody (human or non-human) feels safe any more?
I'm not sure if you and your fellow Ministers have any idea how powerful the feelings are in the community about the Shooters Party bill which Ian Macdonald has negotiated as part of a deal. The general public oppose hunting yet they have not been consulted.
It's a disgusting piece of legislation.
http://www.npansw.org.au/web/conservation/hunting_in_nps/hunting.htm
The price Labor will pay for this insidious deal will be devastating. I for one will not be voting Labor OR giving my preferences to them at the next election if this bill goes ahead!
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/greens-oppose-recreationa...
- a bill to allow hunting in National Parks - including native animals,
plus a scheme for the licensing of private game reserves (that is,
private land in which game animals are confined, or game birds are
released, for the purposes of being hunted by licensed game hunters who
have paid a fee to hunt on the reserve).
*Native animals that would be allowed to be hunted if this Bill gets
passed are:
KANGAROOS
Eastern Grey Kangaroo (Macropus giganteus)
Euro (Macropus robustus)
Red Kangaroo (Macropus rufus)
Western Grey Kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus)
DUCKS
Australian Shelduck (or Mountain Duck) (Tadorna tadornoides)
Australian Wood Duck (or Maned Duck) (Chenonetta jubata)
Black Duck (or Pacific Black Duck) (Anas superciliosa)
Blue-winged Shoveler (or Australasian Shoveler) (Anas rhynchotis)
Chestnut Teal (Anas castanea)
Grass Duck (or Plumed Whistling Duck) (Dendrocygna eytoni)
Grey Teal (Anas gibberifrons)
Hardhead Duck (or White-eyed Duck) (Aythya australia)
Pink-eared Duck (Malacorhynchus membranaceus)
Water Whistling Duck (or Wandering Whistling Duck, Whistling or
Wandering Tree Duck) (Dendrocygna arcuata)
QUAILS
Brown Quail (Coturnix ypsilophora)
Stubble Quail (Coturnix pectoralis)
OTHER BIRDS
Australian White Ibis (Threskiornis molucca)
Black Swan (Cygnus atratus)
Common Bronzewing Pigeon (Phaps chalcoptera)
Galah (Eolophus roseicapilla)
Little Corella (Cacatua sanguinea)
Long-billed Corella (Cacatua tenuirostris)
Purple Swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio)
Straw Necked Ibis (Threskiornis spinicollis)
Sulphur Crested Cockatoo (Cacatua galerita)
Topknot Pigeon (Lopholaimus antarcticus)
Please throw this bill into the trash where it belongs.
Sincerely,
Menkit Prince
Ministerial addresses to write to (copy and paste into recipient space):
[email protected] (Nathan Rees)
[email protected] (Carmel Tebbutt, Deputy Premier)
[email protected] (leader of gov in legisl. council)
[email protected] (Attorney general)
[email protected] (Treasurer)
[email protected] (transport)
[email protected] (women, education)
[email protected] (planning)
[email protected] (finance)
[email protected] (Primary Industries)
[email protected] (community services)
[email protected]> (gaming, racing, sport + rec)
[email protected]> (ageing, disability, aboriginal affairs)
[email protected] (mental health)
[email protected] (Youth, veterans)
[email protected] (roads)
[email protected]> (water, regional development)
[email protected]> (fair trading, citizenship, Assisting Arts)
[email protected] (Housing)
[email protected] (tourism)
[email protected] (corrective services, public sector reform)
[email protected] (emergency services, small business)
"It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products”
~ Steve Irwin
Sign http://www.gopetition.com/kangaroo-extinction.html
The AAT don't have power over the status quo!
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has ruled the culling of kangaroos on Defence Department land in Canberra can resume. The Tribunal had no other choice than to coincide with the powers that be!
That kangaroos cause "substantial damage to declared ecological communities and threatened species" is clearly slack and shonky science! Majura is not a nature conservation reserve but an area for Defence training, but this impact was ignored. However, because Eastern Grey Kangaroos haven't had the common decency to become endangered or vulnerable, they appear to be a threat to civilisation.
The Tribunal do not have the powers to over-ride Defence and the leaders of the ACT, so had to bend according to the status quo.
Like the NSW Shooters party, who want to be able to shoot native animals and birds in private reserves and national parks, fauna are only considered pawns to make deals with the power-brokers who want to privatise NSW lotteries.
Our native animals may not have a lot of economic value, but like some humans, that does not mean they don't have intrinsic value. Non-quantitative values are easily discarded in our materialistic societies and in Canberra's cold hearts.
The scrutinize over fluoride
The scrutinize over fluoride is to dummied up us homeless again commence us less hardy to authority. This device was used by the Nazis reputation concentration camps besides in Soviet Russia to stop rebellions. True, look it up.
National park fringe areas are an escape from the rat race!
BUSHFIRE reconstruction chief Christine Nixon has stated that we need a "rethink" on the place of National Parks, and our relationship with them. Kinglake National Park, and others, were seriously burned and damaged on Black Saturday.
A study by Rees (1984) for the period 1974-84 in Victoria found forest fires were four times more likely to occur in ‘managed state forest’ than in national parks, and that state forest fires burnt eight times the area of park fires. Only 5 per cent of fires started in national parks.
By "managing" our forests and clearing native vegetation, along with the conditions of drought and climate change, we may be actually making them drier, hotter and less dense, and thus adding to the risk of mega-fires.
National Parks have more to do with ecological conservation, biodiversity maintenance, and wilderness recreation, than the creation of safe human sanctuaries. Victoria is already the most damaged and cleared State in Australia.
Maybe our Brumby government should "rethink" about stopping the logging ("management") of state forests and the concrete urban sprawl! With Melbourne's boundaries continually spreading out, more people want to escape the leggo-like sterile building developments and find sanctuary in more natural settings near forested areas. Thus, national park fringes become more attractive not only to fauna but to humans trying to escape the urban rat-race.
Repco Reps more powerful than elected Reps!
Many months prior to the rally being put through Parliament. not one person in Government, local or state or Federal has by either in writing or by direct personal consult has asked residents for concerns/approval about the Repco rally being in our area.
Repco has had a couple of public meetings not very well advertised.(Suspiciously, a neighbour who works for the RTA had knowledge and keenenss of the race well in advance of any other neighbours.)
I find it very affronting that only now 10 days after the Government approval of the rally race, that a Repco race rep appears at my home.
Not asking about concerns and for approval, but telling me this is what will happen and when!
But not a single council letter or local representative has had the gumption or courtesy to seek and address residents concerns!
Certainly not from state or federal levels either.
Where is the environment minister?
Clearly we now know that the environment and residents are not represented by elected members in any area of government anymore, rather rep's from large sporting companies and multinationals have the power over our lives and communities.
I am dismayed that neighbours who seem to value their country home and lifestyle are so easily ready to be bribed by a few free tickets and cans of beer or Chardonnays!
Perhaps, not surprisingly, these are the same ones that don't care about the environment, grading riperian creek zones fencing across creeks and using the road at high speeds.
They also haven't the insight to see their rights have been usurped, and their roads will be wrecked even more than before!
Rallying against rally
I have written to Mr Rudd.
- 7 days later no reply
NSW Premier Mr Nathan Rees
- 9 days later no reply
Janelle Saffin (member for Page NSW)
- 7 days later no reply
Perhaps Liberal Ministers would be more concerned with NSW residents who voters and who are rate payers being ignored in favour of a car rally?
Certainly none of our elected representatives at all levels are interested in public concerns?
Will Rally drivers have to use Third World NSW medical services?
Why is it Mr Rees that it takes Repco rally reps who can offer me access to immediate medical services?
Yet it takes 7 days just to see a doctor privately in Kyogle?
2-3 hours to see a Dr in emergency at Kyogle hospital, even when you have chest pains?
I also cannot be operated on for 12 months!
Unless I am in agony 3 times in one month!
Why are Blood tests also not kept unless I remain in Hospital (no beds available to provide this)
Will Rally drivers be subjected to these third world medical services in NSW?
Or will they get special treatement and be flown by helicopter to better services In QLD?
Where will all these cashed up race spectators seek accomadation?
That is suposed to benefit this town and make millions for NSW tourism and (Kyogle) there are only 2 motels with 10 rooms?
Will I have to offer paid camping on my property to enable me to pay rates and effect repairs on my car after our road is forgotten when the rally destroys the road?
Maybe even help pay for an operation in a private hospital?
Repco Representative visits, Still no reply from NSW Premier
Today Sunday June 21 a Repco rally rep visited at 12 pm.
Still no reply from the premier Mr Rees.
They assured me that the rally will only close the road for 4 or so hours- 1 day 5th Sep 2009.
Special emergency medical evacuation support will be arranged if need be (will be in touch to finalize arrangements).
When asked about the road they said it will be left in the condition found,So that depends on when and how well the council grade the road before hand. I have heard the road will be graded unprecendently twice this year, I assume prior to the rally and after. This is 14 months earlier than usual. After the rally we will have to wait ...
Meaning it will then not be graded again until just before the rally returns in its second year. Mid 2011
I was offered "free tickets" to watch the race and a special spectator area will be set up for residents at the end of our road where it is blocked.
No other concessions re: the inconvenience of the road closure/damage, race noise and environmental effects as well as the stress of worry that my medical condition will be neglected during the race etc.
Many neighbours keen for the race are under assurances they will receive free alcohol and food while watching the race.
There is no such offer, only a certain number of "free tickets" for yourself and some friends. Rally Australia and the NSW Government=t and Kyogle council will make many many $1000 in profits from race advertising/income.
Yet I am expected to pay my rates or lose my home and still pay for car repairs by using this world class rally road along with its extra race usage.
But could we afford the cost of such bushfire shelters?
Thanks, Joan for sharing your knowledge with us.
Aime's article suggested that good protection against bushfires could be achieved at a cost that would be affordable to most people. Yours suggests that the solutions proposed in Aime's article and associated comments could become death traps.
Could I put to you that the bushfire bunker designs she suggested may still be considerably better than no protection at all?
Whether or not this proves to be the case, it seems that the cost, in economic and ecological terms, of giving everyone in bushfire-prone areas near absolute protection against the threat of bushfires may be more than we can afford if we take into account the cost of building bushfire shelters and the clearing of vegetation from around the bushfire shelters.
If we multiply the necessary cleared land per shelter by the number of shelters necessary to house the growing numbers of people living in bushfire-prone areas, whether by choice or necessity, then much more of Australia will necessarily become drier increasing even further the likelihood of bushfires in what little bush is likley to remain.
It is somewhat analogous to the way the waste heat necessarily created by the operation of air-conditioning units in cities like Tokyo actually increases the overall temperature as well as adding to the level of greenhouse gases, even as they afford some respite from the heat inside dwellings.
Instead of going to all this enormous expense and trouble, either as individuals or as a community, we, perhaps, instead, need to consider other alternatives, some of which have already been suggested by others including Tigerquoll in his article "Bushfire bunkers strategy an 'after-the-fact' dead end". These include:
- Measures to make the bush less dry. These can be adapted from proposals by Peter Andrews and the Natural Sequence Farming movement to fix up our rural land (although this would require us to rethink many of our assumptions about the inappropriateness of weeds and non-native plant species);
- make the settlement patterns in bushfire-prone areas more compact;
- discouragement of settlement in bushfire-porne areas in the first place;
- effective bushfire-fighting strategies including early detection and aerial suppression of fire rather than the tired old truck-centric response methodology; and
- the establishment of a nationwide professional bushfire fighting service in place of reliance on volunteers;
Gross government neglect of emergency management
This comment, in response to Vivienne's comment above, has been converted into the article "Gross government neglect of emergency management" - JS
More evidence of harm caused by fluoridation
To quote "If her supposition held water (!) then one might expect there to be many, many similar cases over the many decades of fluoridation of our great cities (Sydney and Melbourne between them have about 8 million people.)"
Well sir, many of us do have bad health issues, but our medical system treats symptoms, not causes. So whilst most of us do suffer health issues, there is no way that the "medical profession" would ever contribute it to something that the "government" had ordained. I use those terms lightly, as the government is simply made up of puppets who bow to a minority of people that control them. The medical profession is simply a business designed to "push" drugs on the general public. Do not get me wrong, I have great respect for surgeons and some of the medications out there, but the bulk of it is to alleviate symptoms caused by the vast amount of toxic chemicals in our foods and waters of today.
I come from a non fluoridated community, and have now lived in Townsville for 6 years, of which has produced painful bones, impotence, migraines, and lethargy. as I received no relief from the medical profession, I gave up, and started my own research. After much trial and error, I found that after only drinking bottled or properly filtered water, did my problems start to come right. One must be careful, for as soon as the "government" allows, fluoride will be added to many bottled waters, if not already.
In a nutshell, fluoride is one of the most toxic elements available, more toxic than lead, yet they put it in our water. 67 times the safe amount of lead is added in fluoride to our water. Then they wonder where all the disorders come from. Eg. ADD, ADHD, cancers, arthritis, aspergers, and a multitude of others that can be scientifically linked.
People feel safer in their cabins!
Like the Titanic, many people didn't want to board the life-boats because they felt safer in their cabins! That's why many were launched almost empty, and then when the inevitable became obvious, there wasn't enough life boats so most of the passengers drowned. The Titanic's record of disaster is so much like climate change! Our "unsinkable" Titanic is our planet Earthship. We can't change human culture or mindset until the end is visible, when it will be too late for most of humanity, and the non-human creatures we will take with us. Anthropocentric attitudes, that the World was made for human existence and couldn't be destroyed by human impact and numbers, will also cause resistence to change. Addressing climate change will be a hard battle, and the existing mindset and culture attached to Capitalistic ideas will form a firm barrier of skeptism. Even Christine Milne doesn't mention exponential population growth! Surely any "green" efforts to cut carbon emissions are negated by more people! More people will make the Titanic sink faster, and mean more fatalities.
Saluzinsky's manufactured reality
Gee, also Chair of the Australia Council Literature Board. That leaves real writers nowhere official to go.
As for the ABC being left wing, when it is chockablock with Murdoch journos. The mainstream media is just manufactured reality. I prefer Hansard for writing (the politicians really work on some of their speeches - or their speechwriters do) and I prefer blogs like yours and candobetter for the common reality. Great to see you posting here.
A poor compensation for lives given to industry
Not only do we not need all the goods we produce for consumption at home or abroad, we do not need the income they bring, and their acquisition is a poor compensation for lives given to industry. It is a great statement I must admit.
Business essay
Although this post contains a link to a commercial site, it is a reasonable comment about the article, so I approved it. - JS, 20 Jun 09
not starving
Sure doesn't look like he's starving, which was suposedly a reasons for the cull. Since these animals are highly socialised I wonder how long it will take him to recover from the psychological trauma. We humans are cruel buggars, aren't we? Really dangerous.
Well said Sheila
Sheila, Your comments could equally be applied to the Repco Rally Australia planned for the Tweed and Kyogle areas.
Well said.
Discussion closed. Thank you for your participation
The issues entailed in this forum have touched on some raw nerves.
It is my judgment that it is necessary for this discussion to end in order to preserve harmony and goodwill.
I everyone to continue the discussion elsewhere such as on the site www.quietas.net or on the Yahoo Group Quiet Tasmania at groups.yahoo.com/group/Quiet_Tasmania.
We will inform people of any other forum sites related to this issue.
I thank everyone for their interest and participation.
Addiction
I think the problem is that quite a lot of people are addicted to the short term financial gains they can make out of the inflation of resources and ammenities that population growth causes. They then form coalitions with other profiteers, as we find in the growth lobby with organisations like The Property Council of Australia or APop. Advocates, like heroine addicts or alcholics, will then make excuses for the impacts of their dangerous pursuit of fast money, using ideologies like, growth is good, or it 'creates jobs' or 'it creates wealth' and they will try to convince people that 'most people like high densities etc and that 'everyone' likes to see house prices go up. Since most of the media is owned by people with this kind of addiction, we rarely really see how 'most' people really feel, and many of us believe we are alone, when we are actually part of the -non-reported - silent majority.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
A courteous summary
That's a courteous summary, Menkit Prince.
Here's a case study. A mature-age lady of considerable intelligence, who likes to read and enjoy her grandchildren when they visit, was intermittently harrassed by the noise of two dogs over her back fence. After one year complaining to her local authority, the dogs were eventually de-barked. The woman had been prescribed anti-depressants for depression and anticipatory anxiety that set in from the stresses arising from wondering when and if something negative was going to emanate from the yard next door.
After the dogs were de-barked, she was gradually taken off the medication, but her health didn't improve. She had been delivered too much stress, for too long. It was prognosticated that her psychological damage might be reversed in 3-4 years, if she could be spared the dogs, but perhaps the scars would never heal. To make matters worse, two years later, a Rottweiler took a 2" x 2" piece out of her leg when she was out walking. She was hospitalised, the wound became infected.
These days, this lovely, kind and gentle woman cannot stand to hear one bark. I understand this case is not at the extreme end of the scale. This type of example is not limited to this woman's experiences. Psychological damage from force-fed noise from barking dogs is a recognised medical condition.
Sydney's Garvan Institute is very clear: stress causes many irreversible medical conditions, including cancer. The World Health Organisation is also very clear: community noise, including "impulse" noise from dogs, causes high levels of human stress. This has been proven by dose response studies, measuring human cortisol levels. Impulse noise is known to elevate blood pressure and cortisol levels for half an hour following every emission.
The point of this post is: prevention is better than cure. Some people become incurable to illnesses, if the causes are not attended soon enough. To advocate in favour of "tolerance" and advocate against "extremism" when human health and non-implementation of protection laws are a large part of the subject matter, is to justify wrongdoing.
I do not have any views on how other people should think. Everyone is entitled to their own choices. But those of us who have been forced to put up with someone else's choice to ignore or deliver their racket to unwilling receptors, are fed up. It's all over, red rover. We've had enough, and we're not taking it any more.
Phew!
Lots of interesting, intelligent, ridiculous, funny, thought-provoking comments here.
On the one hand I can understand the side of dog guardians that Sheila appears to be the only advocate for. Her suggestion to simply go to the owner of the barking dog and enquire as to the problem and offer help in a neighbourly way is good however some people are not reasonable, as we know. Then what?
I think the kind of dog barking everyone is talking about here Sheila is the kind of incessant, neurotic, repetitive barking that does drive people mad. A happy dog doesn't need to bark at all, unless there is a strange sound and that shouldn't be for more than a short time. If a dog is distressed from being alone, or not having needs met, that anxiety is transmitted through the sound and picked up by anyone in the vicinity and is a stressor to all.
Animals in the wild hardly make any sound at all except when they are trying to find each other, alert each other to danger, or to a good food find. I live in the rainforest and it's very quiet here even though I am surrounded by lots of species. Dogs shouldn't need to bark hardly at all.
Domesticating dogs and cats (feral animals) is a totally unnatural activity but that is what we have done, along with wrecking the country with cows and sheep overgrazing and deforesting our land. So much of our life is totally unnatural. Look at what we eat for crying out loud. Locking a dog that is designed to be running free inside a house is totally unnatural. No wonder they bark. They are bored.
It's true that people have different levels of sensitivity to sound - any sound. I fall into the ultra-sensitive camp, unfortunately, being particularly sensitive to traffic noise (having spent my entire childhood raised on the Princes Highway in Sydney with my bedroom at the front of the house), loud music (especially that mind-numbing, stupefying dorff music that people around here like to play on the weekend till 4am) and dog barking. I also don't like the sound of television, radio, people whistling or singing songs to themselves in supermarkets or music in general.
Having said that I am also an animal-lover. A dog would not be my choice of a companion because of the damage they do to wildlife in this area - same with a cat.
Quiet Tasmania you seem to hate dogs and this may be pushing Sheila's buttons. To describe dog guardians as being selfishly indulgent is extreme. If you were to try and understand where she was coming from in terms of the emotional benefits that dogs bring to their guardians you may be a little less intolerant of what appears to you to be perhaps sentimentality? She did after all only take the dogs on because her mother could no longer care for them. In so doing, she saved their lives most likely. These animals wanted to live and not be killed in a shelter. I would probably do the same even though I'm not a 'dog' person. Not only that but dogs are wonderful beings who love to play, love to make others happy in general and just love to love. What about their redeeming qualities such as saving lives? So to have the motivation of wanting to help the dog FIRST and foremost may lead to a solution with your neighbours faster than feeling selfishly irritated and wanting to help your own needs first and foremost.
However, failing that there are a number of steps you can take. As for councils not being willing to act, it depends on your location. My son lives in the Tweed Shire and he has a dog who barks when left alone. A neighbour has complained twice to the council resulting in a fine to my son of $1000. I spoke to the neighbour and feel compassion for him. He told me that my son had gone away for a whole weekend and left the dog outside. As a result the dog barked non-stop day and night and the neighbour could not sleep. Being a reasonable person he didn't want to be unfair to the dog or my son but what to do? The thought occurred to him to open the gate which would have resulted in the dog's death for sure. A less reasonable person would have thrown a poisoned bone to him. My advice to my son was to find the dog a home where she could be free to run since she is a kelpie/rhodesian ridgeback hunting dog, not meant to be couped up inside a tiny yard or worse, inside a house with blinds drawn all day while my son was at work! (kids!!???!!)
Sheila you have to understand how desperate people can become when deprived of sleep and a life. That is what this thread is about and something needs to be done. It's not about needing a totally noise-free existence and being incapable of associating with other creatures. I don't think the solution is to build expensive sound-proof dwellings either because dogs need access to fresh air and as soon as you close windows and doors you create a totally unnatural existence for them. So much for allowing natural behaviours.
The suggestion to use 1080 on barking dogs was tactless and provocative. Where is the concern for the dog? 1080 is a gruesome way for any animal to die and I am dead against (excuse the pun) using it on indigenous animals. What is wrong with humans that we can't leave native animals enough space to have a life anyway? Why are we so fascinated with the use of toxic chemicals as a solution to any problem? The whole problem is caused by humans, as James said, who refuse to train their dogs. A mere 2 hours with a trainer and poof! problem gone. It may be worth your peace of mind to pay for that for your neighbour if they don't have the funds. Certainly a lot easier and cheaper than moving house.
In the event of the guardian refusing even training for the dog, in the worst case scenario, instead of having the dog killed I'd say the lesser of two evils would be to take out it's vocal chords. I'm not in favour of removing organs in general but if it was me I'd rather be alive without a voice than not alive. So accusing peace-lovers of causing the death of a barking dogs by euthanisation is not right.
I hope that the two main antagonists of this thread can give a little leeway to each other and learn something here. Thanks James for allowing this thread. I think it may help many people. We should always try to find solutions that are loving and not come from a place of anger if possible.
"It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products”
~ Steve Irwin
Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangar
World's population will blow-out before the next millenium!
Al Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of Physic, University of Calorado Boulder in United States, has stated that in 780 years there will be only one square meter for each person on the planet's land at our rate of population growth! It is clear that this human density will never be achieved as our ecology will be depleted long before this!
The things that we feel good about, such as family size, immigration, good health etc will be the factors that actually make our species come to their conclusion even faster. The things we don't want, such as zero population growth, high mortality etc, the factors that will help us in the long term.
We will not make it to the next millenium! Is the human race so blinded that they are heading faster towards mass suicide?
Albert Bartlett: "Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way
aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?"
Our Government keeps adding more people to Australia. Do they fail to understand the exponential functions of growth, or are they just going ahead "business as usual" until the next election knowing that they are contributing to our final demise?
Constructive discussion invited
There's plenty of constructive ideas at http://www.quietas.net/Page51.html where there's also an invitation to comment by email.
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Going legal - sending a bad dog owner packing?
Tigerquoll, there's a limit throughout the land of two dogs per suburban dwelling. More than two requires the issuance of a kennel licence which may be denied if anyone within 200 metres of the proposed kennel objects. This distance should be raised to two kilometres.
I'd welcome details of your success. It's usually the tormented victim of barking who has to move out.
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Public has been fed lies to justify Majura kangaroo massacre
Subject was "The public have been fed so many lies!" - JS
The public have been fed so many lies, pseudo-science and greenwashing to jusify the "cull" of Majura's kangaroo population, under the smoke-screen of environmental concern. All our native animals are under stress from population growth (humans), urbanisation, heavy cattle grazing, invasive weeds, land clearing and feral animals. These are the threats to the legless lizards, the golden sun moths and the native grasses. Kangaroos DO NOT over breed their habitat or threaten other native animals! The "experts" who drew the conclusions that kangaroos are a threat are being paid to produce these results! This is not robust or independent science. Do the public really believe that Jon Stanhope and Defence are poignantly worried about the native grasses and critters in them? Are they environmental extremists now? Of course not! There are plans for this area at Majura, just like they killed over 500 kangaroos at Belconnen that were "starving" but weren't, because they wanted the land! They would have no qualms about driving tractors and bulldozers through this area for roads or buildings.
There has been no consideration for what Defence use the land for, or what they intend to do with it.
We need some honesty, some transparency, some compassion and respect for non-human creatures. Our Colonial mentality still exists today that made the Tasmanian Tiger extinct. Extinction is not an event but a process, and our kangaroo killing industry and this lethal "management" is totally shameful to Australia, and we even persecute and hate our own symbols of Australia.
You're not trying to stop the barking?
I think winding up the barking on barking would be to turn the boat around across Bass Strait just as you've laid sight on the Tasy coast!
The discussion has drawn out some good issues. One anecdote I can offer for the 'RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT' case is that as a victim of a neighbour's dog barking (6 months) , I have gone legal and look like having the second fine imposed that will finally send the tenant with her three barking dogs over the back fence, packing.
A final article I found in the paper for the 'RIGHT TO BARKING' case:
Two jailed over 'barking dog murder'
========================
SOURCE: AAP, June 10, 2009
'A SYDNEY woman who stabbed to death a man who complained about her barking dog will spend at least 10 years behind bars for his murder.
Joseph Henry Durrant, 47, was returning home from alcohol-fuelled Australia Day celebrations in the early hours of January 27, 2007, when he made a comment about a noisy dog in Phyllis Street, Mt Pritchard. The father of three was then fatally attacked with a knife.
In April this year, Katrina Megan Whitmore, 26, was found guilty of Mr Durrant's murder, with a New South Wales Supreme Court jury concluding she caused the fatal stab wound.
Her brother Frederick Whitmore, 35 - who was due to face a separate murder trial - pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
In the NSW Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams sentenced Katrina Whitmore to a maximum of 14 years and Frederick Whitmore to a maximum of seven years.
With time already served, Katrina Whitmore will be eligible for parole on February 21, 2019, with Frederick Whitmore first eligible for release on September 14, 2011.'
Dogged justice. Woof woof!
Discussion still going around in circles.
I think it may time to wind down this discussion.
I am the last person to want to stop discussion on any question, particularly one that so that affects the lives of so many amongst us, however the discussion seems to have turned into one that is largely one between too intractable extremes, in which neither side is listening to the other.
In normal life, it is accepted that if we want to resolve conflicts, both sides need to be prepared to consider the other point of view and be willing to make compromises to accommodate the needs of the other side, but that seems to have been lost on many participants in this discussion.
Whilst I am also very bothered by dog barking, I am disappointed that some amongst us are so ready to dismiss proposals that I think could go a long way towards solving the proposal.
That proposal was that Governments or Councils set up free or subsidised programs to train dogs or walk them during the day. That is just on of many possible suggestions I could have offered.
However, this suggestion has been dismissed on the grounds that essentially accept the free market 'every man for himself' dogma that determines nearly all of our policy agendas these days.
One purpose of this site is to challenge the dysfunctional political and economic system we now live under, not just to try to deal with its symptoms, of which I believe the widespread incidence of dog barking is.
This web site is also not the place for who want the needs of other members of society to be entirely disregarded so that their own (or their pets) can be met.
I still think that dog barking is an important issue and I would encourage constructive discussion that aims to arrive at solutions, but that does not seem to be happening.
A good find
Thankyou Tigerquoll, for a good find. I appreciate your interest and I'm grateful for your comments.
The catch with this legislation lies in that seemingly innocuous word "unreasonably." This damned word, along with others elsewhere like it such as "excessively" - is undefined.
This means that nobody knows what the boundaries of tolerance are. It leaves the so-called "enforcement authorities" floundering for actionable standards. It leaves the complainant without firm criteria. An eventual standard can be set by a particular court in a particular matter - but by then it's prettymuch too late. It's all way too sloppy by far.
The impact of Noise is extremely subjective person-to-person, so setting actionable boundaries is problematic. What annoys me tonight when I'm lying in bed unable to sleep won't annoy me tomorrow night when I'm so tired I sleep right through it.
When I was a kid in Suburban Sydney everyone intuitively respected his neighbours' rights to live in peace and quiet.
That consideration has substantially dissolved nowadays, hence all the troubles.
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Maplewood 'Noise Control' solution applied to Barking Dogs
A quick Google of 'Noise Control' finds an ordnance all the way from Maplewood Planning Department, in Minnesota, mid-west USA.
It relates to noise, which is at the crux of this dog barking debate.
Check the link:
http://mn-maplewood.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=345
Some key features which I like are notably:
1. It is comprehensive..."(a) No person shall make or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety or welfare of any person or precludes their enjoyment of property or affects their property's value."
2. It covers the period 7pm to 7am Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday.
3. It sets a proximity limit of 350 feet (100 odd metres) - I think that would allow for a distance of 4 standard house blocks from the barking dog so as to reduce the volume of the barking to a tolerable background level. Nearer neighbours would be affected.
4. It is enforced by the police. This would in itself cause angst because it wouldn't take long for the police to get frustrated by the number of call outs as to force politicians to change the legislation to make owning a dog onerous.
5. It attracts criminal penalties - US$700 (very close to the AUD$1000 I previously espoused), and..bonus...even imprisonment! The best part is: "(d) Each act of violation and each day a violation occurs or continues constitute a separate offense."
The barking problem will be solved in weeks - many owners will be financially forced to put down their barking pooch.
No, never. Never ever ...
ANY form of subsidy to dog owners is RIGHT OFF the radar screen. It must NEVER happen!
Australia's dog plague and all the suffering that goes with it is significantly out of control as it is - and it's FAR worse in America, the nation which habitually abuses its freedoms more than any other.
Instead, the reverse should happen - that dog owners be FORCED, not only to pay for EVERY expense associated with keeping their animals cruelly incarcerated, but to pay EVERY expense incurred as a consequence of their ignorant, reckless stupidity. I refer, for example, to ALL the costs incurred, and for the fullest possible recompense to the family whose head was killed when he ran off the road on his way to work because of the tiredness brought about by the previous night's barking of his neighbour's dog. This is just ONE ghastly example of the innumerable invisible tragedies and suffering associated with the keeping of dogs. There's millions of lesser examples - EVERY DAY!
Shall I speak now of the maulings, the disfigurations, the DEATHS - of those attacked by the so-called domestic dog? Even when a local dog killed his little girl her father said "Oh, it was just an accident!" Like hell it was. Because of his ignorant, selfish, mindless stupidity, the dog owner had SET IT UP!
Dog ownership is nearly always an indulgence, and an extremely selfish one at that. I don't expect anyone else to subsidise any of my few INESSENTIAL indulgences such as chocolate, and I'm not going to subsidise the cost of my neighbour's backyard swimming pool, either. If he wants such indulgences, then HE can pay for them! Fully!
Those dependent on their dog for their irrational source of narcissistic supply should pay all the costs associated with their damned fool drug addiction. Don't look to me for one cent of those costs - I've managed my life for 70 years without having needed a dog for even one second.
Except in quite rare circumstances, dogs are NOT ESSENTIAL.
I admire a well-trained farm dog's ability to herd sheep, and I'm awed by the astounding sensitivity of a customs' dog to sniff illicit drugs, and I recognise that the salary of a dog that keeps its vision-impaired owner less helpless is low, and I can accept the desire of the elderly for live-in companionship that's therapeutic - but beyond this, NO.
The reality is that dogs, by their nature, are unsuitable creatures for city and suburban conditions.
Our society will eventually realise this, but in the meantime it's as loopy as a hula hoop.
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Imports mean that harmful industries stay offshore
Would we want heavy industry encouraged in Australia to improve our balance of trade, or prefer these be done elsewhere, import them at high cost and leave our natural environment healthier and intact? I am not advocating encouraging China to destroy more of its natural environment, but in a selfish way I prefer the Three Gorges Dam is there than here. It has become the world’s largest hydro-electric power station, but flooded important cultural heritage and displaced some 1.24 million people.
Containerised seafreight into Melbourne has long taken the deep water route around the Mornington Peninsula. Ecological standards and tests must prevail to ensure no cost cutting short cuts are dredged through shallow marine environments of high conservation value.
Consumers of imports need to pay more for the higher costs of getting them to market. This will enable local producers to better compete. The challenge is to separate inflation on imports from pushing up prices on local production. Economic sustainability doesn't require endless growth year on year. What's wrong with a static profit year on year? The tests of sustainable consumerism should be triple bottom line health - social health, economic health and ecological health. Push one too far and you downgrade the others.
What does RSPCA CEO Heather Neil have to say about this?
The inference to draw from this response is that the RSPCA doesn't care.
The RSPCA website in Australia is at http://www.rspca.org.au/what-we-do/mission.html
It states its mission is "to prevent cruelty to animals by actively promoting their care and protection."
It states its vision is "to be the leading authority in animal care and protection."
The RSPCA's objectives are listed as:
"To prevent cruelty to animals by ensuring the enforcement of existing laws at federal and state level.
To procure the passage of such amending or new legislation as is necessary for the protection of animals.
To develop and promote policies for the humane treatment of animals that reflect contemporary values and scientific knowledge.
To educate the community with regard to the humane treatment of animals.
To engage with relevant stakeholders to improve animal welfare.
To sustain an intelligent public opinion regarding animal welfare.
To operate facilities for the care and protection of animals."
The RSPCA's policy in relation to kangaroo killing states:
"RSPCA Australia believes that the issue of whether kangaroos and wallabies should continue to be killed under a sustainable use policy should be reviewed by both federal and state/territory governments. Continuing research is needed to determine the impact of current culling practices on kangaroo populations and their environment.
"RSPCA Australia believes that any measures taken to reduce kangaroo populations should first be proven to be necessary (through a proper consideration of the reasons for control). They must be conducted humanely and be under the direct supervision of the appropriate government authorities (as part of an approved kangaroo management program). Effective monitoring and auditing of such programs is vital to ensure that these conditions are met.
There are a number of aspects of the current management of kangaroos that do not conform to these conditions, such as:
Large numbers of kangaroos are shot inhumanely every year, particularly under the non-commercial system.
Each time a female kangaroo is shot her dependent joey is either killed by the shooter or will die as a result of predation, dehydration or starvation. The RSPCA has serious concerns about the suffering caused by shooting females with pouch young.
The process of setting quotas for killing kangaroos does not relate population reduction directly to damage mitigation. Kangaroo management plans are now treating kangaroos as a sustainable resource available for commercial use, rather than making a decision for control as a result of examining the welfare of kangaroos or their impact on the environment.
Until these issues have been properly addressed, questions remain about the humaneness of kangaroo shooting and the basis for current government policies on the management and killing of kangaroos." SOURCE: http://kb.rspca.org.au/?View=entry&EntryID=77
Clearly, the RSPCA responses above are anathema to the Society's raison d'etre.
CEO, Heather Neil, should be publicly held to account for the responses above and accordingly asked to explain why the RSPCA has deliberately abbrogated its legal and moral obligations in relation to this mass slaughter - 'The Fitzgibbon Massacre of 9th May 2009'.
We are a community mainly of consumers
Here in Australia, until the 1980s, we were able to produce our own cars, televisions, clothing, fabrics, shoes and many other consumer goods. What has happened? Now we are a nation of consumers, depending on imports from overseas, quite often from China. Of course, we need to deepen Port Phillip Bay to ensure all the imported goods reach the CBD! Free trade with Asia has produced unemployment and "Australia made" products are more often than not produced overseas or have imported ingredients. Australia is being bastardised by imports and our population is growing but we are relying on foreign producers to prop our economy up.
Barking Dogs.
Indeed dogs can be very successfully trained not to bark. A professional, experienced canine-trainer can help a dog and its owner, in less than 2 hours, and everyone within hearing distance will reap the benefits.
The cost of training has to be borne by the owners. I don't believe that the wider community would respond well to subsidising dog management, particularly if their choice is to keep domestic cats. Most of us are flat out prioritising our disposable income to absolute necessities like health insurance, house insurance, rates, (incidentally, all of us already subsidise dog management through our rates), food, electricity, rent/mortgages. Many budget conscious people wisely forego luxuries, so they can meet their daily financial commitments.
It's just like anything else. If people want to keep dogs, run a car, go to the gymnasium, etc., then they must budget accordingly, or refrain from the indulgence.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts on what has been a life and soul-destroying family health issue. Whilst I am sympathetic to the rights of people to keep a pet, the major consideration must be public health, duty of care, and personal responsibility.
Discussion may be going around in circles
I think this already lengthy discussion may be starting to go around in circles.
If I am to be labeled hypersensitive because I am traumatised by the prolonged sound of dogs barking, then at least two other established contributors to this web site must also be labeled as such.
What is also clear is that if those on either or both sides of the discussion adopt extreme positions, then a satisfactory resolution for all sides is unlikely to be achieved.
I think in the circumstances we have found ourselves, it is reasonable to expect dogs to be trained to bark only intermittently and not for lengthy periods, except where there is good cause. I have heard of dogs being trained not to bark more than three times on any single occasion.
That's less than ideal for me, but I think I could cope with that. Of course, this still may not be satisfactory for others troubled by dog barking.
And, as I have said before, I think it is reasonable for the broader community to help those with dogs by subsidising training or other services that could mitigate the barking problem.
Courtesy.
The rules of courteous debate include avoidance of personal attack and accurate interpretation of a differing point of view, which I believe Mr Sinnamon encourages on this forum.
Firstly there has been no equation whatsoever between dogs and cigarettes. The equation is between dog noise (a scientifically acknowledged toxic pollutant) and another scientifically acknowledged human health hazard: second-hand cigarette smoke.
Our local council is highly supportive about the matter of sleep deprivation from barking dogs and I understand their policy is moving towards zero tolerance as health claims are regularly reaching litigation. The road accident risks from drowsy driving by workers who are sleep-disturbed by noisy dogs are very real. This awareness is a good thing, and their intelligent attention to this important human health and safety subject is very much appreciated.
The sound of neighbours brushing their teeth would not be a problem, because it is possible to mask low-level noise emissions with background music, or television. When a noise competes with the quiet enjoyment of someone's television, radio or family communications, or disturbs their sleep, then it is generally too loud and intrusive.
The comment about parrots and other creatures is tedious and boring. I would never contend that dogs or any other animals have no right to exist. Sniffer dogs, police dogs, quiet house dogs that provide company for lonely people, and the well-trained dogs that assist sight-impaired are harmless creatures.
It is the disgraceful lack of bark training, in tandem with the epidemic of children being bitten and torn to shreds by uncontrolled dogs, that is increasingly being debated.
The comment about parrots, wind tunnels and vibrant colours would be hilarious if it wasn't so spiteful.
Further, compressed foam industrial earplugs can and do cause tinnitus, particularly if the inner ear begins to sweat. If the writer of the above post has no formal ENT qualifications, then it is extremely unwise to post audiological advice. If someone follows that advice, and incorrectly applies such devices to their ears, the outcomes can be very serious. Tinnitus, and bleeding of the inner are just two complications. Provision of unqualified audiological advice on a public forum is most unwise.
The repetitive, accusative application of the word "you" contained in the above post is unnecessarily hostile. I browsed Mr Sinnamon's site to learn about many interesting subjects. There's a "Sheila" theme to Mr Sinnamon's website. Does this mean that alternative opinions on all subjects, no matter how valid, or how life-impacting, will be responded with similar venom?
With regard to the example of the motor neurone patient who was subjected to the cruelty of uncontrolled dog noise, the surviving spouse had one sad comment after reading the above post: what goes around comes around.
The above post unfortunately carries an aggressive tone. It is unnecessarily cruel, it contains nothing that I understand to represent the best side of humanity, and is not at all in the spirit of intellectual debate.
More Australian anti-Noise websites
Australian anti-Noise websites generally inactive or not maintained are as follows:
1. Quiet Australia at http://quietaus.blogspot.com/ and its associated Yahoo discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuietAus/
2. Noise Tasmania at http://www.geocities.com/noisetas/
Peter Bright
Quiet Tasmania
www.quietas.net
Australian anti-Noise websites
I'm aware of only three Australian anti-Noise, anti-barking websites.
These are my own comprehensive and sometimes updated website Quiet Tasmania at http://www.quietas.net and its supplementary and much shorter associated and regularly updated website Quiet Tasmania News at http://www.pebri.net
There is an associated Yahoo discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quiet_Tasmania/ where membership is immediate and posts are not moderated.
---o0o---
Mr Matthew Ridgeway of Melbourne has VODAAN (Victims of Domestic Animal Attacks and Noise) at http://www.geocities.com/vodaan/ however this is currently not maintained and enquirers are referred to Quiet Tasmania. Matthew's family was forced to relocate because his council refused to control neighbourhood barking.
Matty has an associated Yahoo discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vodaan/ which is currently maintained by Quiet Tasmania.
I'd welcome knowledge of any other Australian websites.
Peter Bright
Hobart
www.quietas.net
World's most informative website on the human health hazards of
On noticing today's Quiet Tasmania post, anyone who is interested in browsing the recommended professional site could be particularly educated by absorbing the section: "The Harm Done". While on the site, anyone open to learning could also click on the Barking Dogs Forum, where true accounts of lives stolen by unwanted noise from dogs, and the resultant trail of family and human carnage, are posted for public information.
Not impressed
As far as I can see, you seem to equate a dog with a cigarette.
You appear to completely lack empathy for a fellow creature and you use your example of motor neurone disease as a reason to dominate all creatures except humans into silence and submission in the way you would expect a cigarette to be snuffed.
I therefore cannot take your position seriously and I can imagine that your local council cannot either.
You are not prepared to make any compromises but expect everyone and every other thing to do so.
You are unwilling to call for better engineering or to militate against planners cramming us all in so close together that soon we will all require earmuffs to put up with our neighbours brushing their teeth.
I fear that, in a world without dogs, you would simply shift your target to parrots or wind tunnels or vibrant colours.
There may indeed be people who suffer from hypersensitivity to particular pitches and tones, but I think it takes a real neurotic to expect the rest of the world to be completely silent. You will, however, fit in well with the kinds of people who squash us all in together, who expect us to modify our behaviour to ludicrous extents.
Give me a dog any day over an unreasonable human quoting the law.
By the way, you can buy industrial ear plugs that don't melt in your ears or cause problems. I have used them in noisy situations myself. It is no big deal.
Sheila Newman
World's best website about barking
Those struggling for knowledge and understanding of dog barking can do no better than explore the world's most comprehensive website on the subject. It's called barkingdogs and the address is http://www.barkingdogs.net/
There is an associated Yahoo discussion group at http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/barkingdogs/
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Choice.
Local Government authorities can readily confirm that their most complained about environmental noise source is barking dogs. Running a close second (police records) - amplified music. Yes, agreed, most definitely - live and let live. The application of the super-sensitive argument as a justification for force-fed barking indicates a lack of kindness for those in our communities who are only asking for choice. It matters not who owns dogs, or who doesn't. What matters is the owners' intelligence, their unwillingness to let their pet impact adversely on neighbours, their unwillingness to permit their animal(s) to inadvertently force its way into the personal space of those who don't want it. Cigarettes once were the focus of enormous popularity and preponderance, but in the end, that didn't make tobacco consumption healthy or right. If dog folk aren't sensible enough to accept modern health research and warnings - then they might find themselves as unpopular as cigarette smokers. Edifying is the miniscule and qualified concession on lengthily sustained barking (in bold print too) for the motor neurone patient. Goodness, that's harsh. To round off, I don't want someone else's dog barking inside my house: no negotiation, no argument, and no amount of offender justification. And we don't want other people's damned amplified music, or any other uninvited scientifically designated pollution. The exclusion zone for dog noise, depending on the local topography, is several kilometres. I'm certainly not going to sound-proof our home to facilitate law-breakers. They can take their dogs and vamoose. If I wanted to live in a dog kennel, I'd pitch a tent at the local dogs' home, where the poor over-populated species are kindly "sheltered" until a bit further down the track they are "kindly" gassed. That says everything about the dog-loving community. The motor neurone patient couldn't even get the courtesy of a peaceful exit. (Well, not any degree of domestic quiet that would qualify as "sustained and lengthy").
Correct me if I am wrong,
Correct me if I am wrong, but the last post gives me the impression that the complainant believes it is reasonable to insist that barking NEVER be heard.
I find that unreasonable. If there are laws that really ban all barking then, in my opinion, those laws ought to be changed. If such laws exist then I can see why they are not enforced. Bad laws are rarely enforced at this level because it creates too much bad feeling.
If people are super-sensitive to barking then provisions should be made to protect them, but it is not fair on anyone to make it impossible for a dog to bark. That is an unreasonable demand.
If dogs enjoy enormous popularity and preponderance, they must have something going for them. It would be an unwise law-maker who would ban any dog that barked within hearing of anyone who might complain.
If I saw that complainers about dog barking demonstrated tolerance of a reasonable amount of barking, I would have plenty of time for them. But, if there are people out there who really think that their perceived need for total conformity to their demands should be met, no matter what the cost to the dog or its owner, then I would tend to describe their need as neurotic.
If someone suffers from a hypersensitivity to barking per se, that is unfortunate. They really need sound-proofed homes and I would be supportive to the community paying for measures to soundproof for persons suffering a hypersensitivity.
For a persons suffering from motor neurone disease, obviously one would expect the owner of a dog to go out of their way to stop some remarkable loud and and lengthily sustained nearby barking. However, people in the community are actually expected all the time to put up with problems they would not choose. Night shift workers have no right to stop builders and roadmakers from using drills and jack hammers, even if they go for days without sleep.
Respectfully, I think a bit of perspective is lacking here and the reluctance to demand better engineering or reparations, makes me suspect the complainants simply don't have any feeling for dogs as living sentient creatures. The lack of kindness seems to be on the part of the people who want to stop dogs barking on all occasions rather than soundproof their environment or learn to live with a bit of noise from other creatures. By the way, I feel the same way about possums. Live and let live.
I also find it extremely difficult to believe that dogs barking is the most common complaint. Where? Could you find and post the evidence for this assertion. In the ACT I have heard that the most common complaint is cruelty to animals.
Sheila Newman - responsible for two dogs over 17 years with no complaints from any neighbour.
Unreasonable expectations and human rights.
It's really very simple. Trans-boundary barking is unacceptable if it is not wanted, and there can be no justification for it. For those who do not wish to have it inside their homes, certain laws have been promulgated that reflect earlier science decreeing dog noise as injurious, unhealthy, toxic pollution. There is no reasonable amount of cigarette smoke (despite smokers enjoying a social puff together, which is a form of quiet communication) that has to be accepted by the unwilling. There is no reasonable amount of oil pollution that has to be accepted by the unwilling. There is no reasonable amount of amplified music pollution. None of it can be justified. If someone wants to produce or live with the source of a pollutant, then that is their choice, no-one wants to deny them that choice, but they must 100% respect their neighbours, and contain their dog's noise so that it does not harm others. All we are asking for is choice. The choice whether we are subjected to the barking of someone else's dog, or whether we prefer a peaceful interior of our homes. We want our babies and infants to have their sleep, whenever nature intends. We want our sick and dying not to be cruelly distressed by the perceived "rights" of dog-owners and their animals to inhabit our personal space. We are entitled to live without dogs barking inside our homes, if that is our choice, and we certainly do not want to inflict harm on others by forcing our noise on them. I wonder how proponents of intrusive dog noise would feel, if someone parked a barking dog outside their bedroom window while they were dying of motor neurone disease, and the patient didn't have the muscle strength to ask for it to be quietened? Really. Those who do not want to listen to the social communication of barking dogs (contagious barking) are not bad people. Those who justify or permit uninvited barking against the will of receptors are increasingly being categorised as bullies. There are some highly reputable studies by qualified behavioural psychologists that confirm this type of human behaviour. Wouldn't it be much, much nicer, so much less shameful, in the short time that we all have to enjoy each other's support and friendship on this earth, to say "yes, we can do better", we can be considerate, we can be kind to each other. In this life I have met kind people, and I have met clever people. Kind has always been much, much better.
noise - parallax perspective
This comment is intended to show sympathy for your case but to suggest an entirely different approach to the fault/punishment one you appear to be suggesting.
According to my analysis, the problem is not 'barking' but 'noise'.
The problem is caused by faulty building and planning which puts people close together but does not protect them from noise by building.
I would suggest that the planners and builders should be made to adequately soundproof buildings and, where that is impossible, they should not build them so close. Where buildings are already up and occupied, then sound-proofing should be done remedially by the council in cases where people cannot stand various forms of noise.
This puts the onus onto the architects and planners to adhere to a rigorous standard which would include protection for people who are particularly sensitive to particular kinds of noise.
The other approach, which puts neighbours in conflict and sometimes helpless dogs' lives and social expression in jeopardy - whatever the reasonableness of the complainant or the defendant - is stressful and it sounds as if it is a no-win in most cases.
I wish you luck in your pursuit of a noise-free existence, but not if it means that people will be even more removed from association with other creatures. My reason for preferencing association with other creatures is that I think humans who live only with humans become insensitive to the other creatures in the world and allow the built environment to exclude them and to engulf more and more of the natural environment.
I don't think it is normal or rational to live in isolation from other creatures, although I realise it happens more and more.
Sheila Newman
What Creates the Market for Manufactured Reality?