conservation

Most of us will remember the second pandemic year of 2021 more with regret or anger than fondness.  For the nature lovers among us, its closing days delivered a triple whammy, for they also proved to be the closing hours in the lives of three venerable conservation champions of international renown whom we had long revered.  By sheer coincidence, Thomas Lovejoy, E. O.

I think it is timely to highlight the fact that HRH Duke of Edinburgh appears to have had a pretty good understanding of environmental issues and the role of human population numbers in environmental degradation.[1] His reputation for having a curmudgeonly persona went before him, and possibly gave him licence to blurt out his thoughts, uncensored by notions of political correctness. His gratuitous remarks to more or less strangers, regarding their appearances, or rude questions, characterised his multitudinous "gaffes". He was refreshingly "un careful" and honest in interviews, so he spoke of what many refer to as "the elephant in the room" - human population numbers - as though this reality was indeed not only visible but very obvious.[2] He remarked in one interview that where humans are, there is nothing else (!) He was unmeasured in his comments, so his message was clear. He also remarked, in one interview, that no-one wants to talk about it [population]. I have not, so far, found an interview where any interviewer delves deeply into this with him.

Other conservationists will speak of population as being the huge problem, but it is inserted, rather that the key message, e.g. David Suzuki and David Attenborough. The Australian Conservation Foundation, of which Prince Philip was once president (1971-76), now refuses to discuss population, although it is the biggest, if not the sole, threat to wildlife and biodiversity in Australia. ACF have made a statement https://www.acf.org.au/acf_statement_on_the_passing_of_prince_philip and credit him with seeding the idea of creating this body, but they do not mention his stand on global human population. Here is one of the prince's statements to People Magazine:

“Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed–not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they’ll do … If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation, and war.”

Prince Philip was in a privileged position which may have, in a different personality, stifled self expression, but it seemed to have given him licence to make utterance on the subject that others would have steered clear of. It was his choice to speak out, and his good fortune to have a ready audience.

The question is, has it done any good? The world's human population is steaming ahead and, at the last count was around 7.9 billion. When Prince Philip was born, nearly a century ago, the world population was around 1.9 billion. Did Prince Philip not say it loudly enough or often enough? Or would it have made no difference if he had saved his breath?

He has apparently passed on his concern and viewpoint to his son, Prince Charles, and also to his grandson, Prince William. Although they will probably make no difference, there is some satisfaction and comfort in knowing that a few individuals, who hold positions of respect in the realm, are conscious of the perilous position of life on Planet Earth. Although they, as individuals, are not in immediate peril, they must realise that, ultimately, the demise of the biosphere will affect them too. They certainly are not exceptions to the need to protect each other and the rest of the population from Covid-19. It is ironic that the bluntly spoken duke once said that he would like to be reincarnated as a virus to control population! [3]

NOTES

[1]#10;https://www.jstor.org/stable/1971611?seq=1">
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1971611?seq=1
[2]https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1095825/prince-philip-overcrowding-prince-william-prince-charles-kate-middleton-royal-news-spt

[3]https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/prince-philips-deadly-virus-quote-comes-back-to-haunt-him.html/

Very early on I made a decision that I wanted to understand a few birds rather than know a little about a lot. In my area, the three birds I loved were the Little Egrets, Spoonbills, and the Osprey. This focus stayed with me till the last photo taken. Any other photo of any other bird came about due to the fact they were in the area of these three birds.

I was blessed that we had eight nesting pairs of Ospreys within a 30 minute drive of where I lived, five different areas and environments, five natural nests and three nesting in placed poles. (They had cut down their trees for developments but we got the developers to put up poles, best outcome.)
So I had a great choice of subjects. I had my favorite pair I called Mr & Mrs Smith. Natural nest in a massive dead tree. Once belonged to a pair of Sea Eagles but someone shot them with a cross bow 15 years ago and the Ospreys took it over. He would eat some times on the Fly, as he ran the gauntlet of all the other birds that wanted his fish. In the picture, you can see the scales flying of and it looks like part of the fish gill stuck in his beak.

It was beside a gravel road 80 meters from the river, had the easiest access of all the nests, good and a bad thing, but the couple of locals who lived near by loved them and if any one came down their dead-end road they knew. In the end we put up a letter box, we asked the shire to consider renaming the Road to Osprey Road and they did. We turned them into a asset, I suppose, but they so helped to build awareness and brought thousands of people to see and want to help, not what you really want but it did bring a community together. School kids came to watch them, wrote 'em letters.

This [picture] is Mr Smith. He was a great hunter: Eight fish a day. During fledging, and for three years, I was able to be around them and capture their life. I did this with little Dave and Deb and Sam Spoonbill and his missus. Spend an hour here, hour each with the others, mix the days - sometimes you spent a whole day because things were happening. It was an amazing time, one I truly miss.

One day during year three, Mr Smith did not come back. I searched for days, found him drowned downriver. He had a mullet that was four times bigger than the normal ones he caught, and he could not lift it out of the water. Was like losing a best mate. I was buggered, just cried for days.

Three days later, I was on the freeway going to Perth. Their nest was a mile north, and Mrs Smith was on the left rail, just sitting there. Never seen them on the rails of the freeway bridge before. On the way back I found her flat on the road. I stopped and picked her up and went and buried her with Mr Smith. She had kicked the chicks out of the nest - she could not leave them to get tucker as they were too small - and they were at the bottom of the tree. Buried them with mum and dad. After that day I was buggered for a month, never went back to the tree 'til a year ago. Couple years later a big storm knocked the top of the tree off and the nest came down. Apart from stories, my and anyone else's images, no-one would know of their existence. These two birds that changed and affected so many lives would be a bit like, “Did the tree make a noise when it fell down in the forest? Only if someone was there to hear it."

So every photo we take is a record of what is, was, and was once. We have no idea how important they might be one day. Every photo is unique, an individual and a totally different perspective of a split second in time. Each and everyone of us is a keeper of that moment, looking at it like that. Just makes it a whole different ball game. We are the keepers of history!! Well that’s how I see it.

Australian Federal MP Hon. Kelvin Thomson speaks in Parliament opposing the practice of "canned hunting" in Africa and specifies ways in which Australia can make this unattractive for Australian would-be "canned hunting" tourists.

Speech against canned hunting given to House of Representatives by Kelvin Thomson

Monday, 9 February 2015, Page 148 Proof of Hansard, Federal House of Representatives.

Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (17:45): Canned hunting is the practice of intensely breeding and domesticating lions within confined areas in South Africa, in particular, in order to create easy targets for tourist hunters, and I support the member for La Trobe in condemning this practice. It is barbaric killing for macabre trophies. Hunters from all over the world, but notably from the United States, Germany, Spain, France and the UK, go to South Africa and send home lion body parts, such as the head and skin preserved by taxidermists, to show off their supposed prowess. The animals involved are habituated to human contact, often hand reared and bottle-fed, so are no longer naturally fearful of people. Such animals will indeed approach people expecting to get fed but instead receive a bullet or even an arrow from a hunting bow. This makes it easy for clients to be guaranteed a trophy, and thus the industry is lucrative and popular.

There is a spurious argument made that somehow hunting brings conservation funding into a country through hunting permits. Yet this has been shown to be patently false. The steepest declines in lion populations have been in countries with the highest hunting intensity, and it has been shown that the funds reaching the local community are minuscule. Born Free USA, along with the Humane Society International, the Humane Society of the United States and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, commissioned economists at large to investigate the facts. That study, published in June 2013, shows that the trophy-hunting industry makes a minimal contribution to national incomes.

It is an absolute scandal that the continental lion population has fallen from an estimate of over 75,000 as recently
as 1980 to around 32,000 in 2012, with a further concern that the numbers could now be as low as 25,000 distributed over only 22 per cent of their historical range. This demonstrates that African lions require increased international protection from all threats including over utilisation for commercial or trophy hunting. Between 1999 and 2008 offtake for recreational purposes was unsustainable by any standard in at least 16 of the 20 range states trading in wild source lion parts.

An Australia Institute report has shown that the economic impact of an Australian restriction on the import of African lion trophies would be minimal because trophy hunting plays a negligible role in African economies, lion hunting is a minor part of the trophy-hunting industry and trophy hunting makes a minimal contribution to rural development. The Australian Institute identifies the trophy-hunting industry as a small part of the African tourism industry. By contrast, the overall tourism industry generates over $13 billion in countries with lions and trophy hunting represents only around two per cent of tourism revenues.

The member for Calare asked in the debate: what can we in Australia do? In response, I support the member for La Trobe's proposal that all animals listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the CITES appendices I, II and III to which Australia is a signatory, are banned from being imported into Australia. I also concur with him that we should change the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to not only stop imports of canned hunted African lion body parts but also stop all species listed under the CITES Appendix 1, Appendix II and Appendix III from being imported unless specifically approved by the Minister for the Environment.

As the member for La Trobe outlines on his website, video footage of this practice depicts many distressing scenes including one of a lion lying on the ground where, at close range, a not-so-skilled or brave hunter takes several shots to kill the lion. The lion does not try to escape as it does not regard the hunter as a threat, due to past positive contact with humans. This cruel and barbaric activity needs to be stopped and a change in the law, preventing the importation of animal trophies resulting from canned hunts, will help achieve this while also assisting in protecting the future of international wildlife.

The idea of killing animals for sport is frankly barbaric and medieval but, if people really want to do it, then at least we should have a level playing field. The lions have teeth and claws; so give the hunter an appropriately sized knife and fire up the lions a bit before the contest by not feeding them for a couple of days. That would be fairer.

This month, at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Lima, Peru, one of the most important battles facing humanity is playing out. At stake: the salvation of the planet. Climate change is already being felt across Latin America and the Caribbean, the World Bank says.

Rising temperatures are changing rainfall patterns, leading to flooding in some places and intense droughts in others. Climate change will mean dry places get drier and wet places get wetter.

Indigenous beliefs, structured by a sound relationship with the environment, are the world over, but unlike in North America, Australia or Europe. They have not been so successfully suppressed in many parts of Latin America, but in some places they are making a resurgence. People living on the slopes of the Andes Mountains, as well as their livestock, are suffering from health problems because the sources of fresh water are diminishing.

Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru and two regional conservationist programs joined the 20x20 Initiative that aims to have all the planned work of re-vegetation 20 million hectares of land well under way by 2020. The initiative aims to change the dynamics of land restoration in the region and initially focuses on bringing 20 million hectares of degraded land into restoration by 2020. The land will be restored partly into natural forests and partly into a “mosaic” of trees, crops, and livestock.

SMH: Latin Americal countries fight climate change

Greenhouse gas emissions from land use changes, such as deforestation, account for 15 per cent of global emissions, or more than what is generated by the world's transport sector. So, programs to avoid destruction of forests help to reduce the amount of heat-trapping gases.

(A main cause of deforestation in South America and Asia has been clearing land for palm oil production. Palm oil has become a major source of biodiesel, a supposedly green fuel - from Blogspot: now can the world have its forests back? )

The response of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) was: for the rich nations to reverse the impact they had made, they must implement carbon emissions reductions of 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. They should shoulder costs of developing countries for mitigation actions, and provide finance and technological help to help developing nations deal with the effects of climate change.

Peru’s intention to show leadership later this year is part of a growing trend where Latin American countries are perceived to be punching above their weight when it comes to participating in global debates and forums on climate change action.

The 20x20 Initiative, which also aims to incorporate more countries of the region into the project, also seeks to tackle the carbon emissions through the protection of forests and fertile lands. UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said, "Today's pledges by countries in Africa and Latin America to combat deforestation and more than double restoration targets will bring significant climate benefits..."

“Land restoration in the region is an essential element to promote equity, poverty reduction, alternatives for development in poor rural areas as well as a mechanism to achieve a low carbon, more resilient future,” said Gabriel Vallejo, Colombia's Minister of Environment, in a statement.." - See more at: http://news.mongabay.com/2014/1207-initiative20x20.html#sthash.rTmKsh5D.Aq8Qlqlk.dpuf

Livestock industries

The global livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than transport and of the 95 million tons of beef produced in the world in 2000, the vast majority came from cattle in Latin America, Europe and North America.

The World Resources Institute in Washington estimates that converting land to farms and using it for agriculture and livestock accounts for almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions in the region. Degraded land can be restored by adding trees to properties that are currently used for farming or raising livestock, and over the long term, the trees themselves can be sustainably harvested to provide additional income to farmers.

The Green Revolution relied on the intensive use of water and fossil-fuel-based chemicals, giving the world a 40 year reprieve of food security, but we can no longer afford to increase food production through agricultural expansion. Trading tropical forest for farmland is one of the most destructive things we do to the environment.

Governments and environmental groups are reluctant to pursue policies or campaigns to change consumer behaviour due to fears of a consumer backlash. International think-tank, Chatham House , found that consumers with a higher level of awareness of climate change and its impacts were more willing to reduce their dietary behaviour. The greatest potential for behaviour change appears to lie in emerging economies, with respondents in Brazil, China and India showing a greater consideration of climate change when choosing meat and dairy, and a greater willingness to modify their behaviour than consumers in the United States, the UK and Japan.

Developing nations can make headway, and make a pro-active response to environmental repairs and a reduction to greenhouse gas emissions, but in contrast, Australia is going backwards.

Australia's refusal to participate on climate change initiatives

The Brisbane G20 summit yielded major pledges to the Green Climate Fund by the US (US$3 billion) and Japan (US$1.5 billion). Combined with earlier pledges by France, Germany and others, the fund is now three-quarters of the way towards reaching its initial funding target of US$10 billion by the time of a pledging.

Australia stands as the only wealthy country to have ruled out a contribution to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund. As of last week, the fund had received pledges from 22 countries totalling $US9.6 billion ($A11.2 billion) against an initial funding target of $US10 billion.

The Abbott government's refusal to contribute to the $US10 billion ($11.8 billion) Green Climate Fund risked Australia "being marginalised", Erwin Jackson, deputy chief executive of The Climate Institute said Australia remains one of the few rich nations not to make a pledge to the UN fund. Even Canada, led by climate sceptic Stephen Harper, has pledged $C300 million ($311 million).

Australia will continue to directly pay for climate change adaptation in vulnerable South Pacific island nations through its aid budget rather than donate to a UN Green Climate Fund. Scientists say much sharper emissions cuts are needed in coming decades to keep global warming within 2 degrees C of pre-industrial times, the overall goal of the UN talks.

With heavy investments in population growth, and growth in livestock industries and exports, Australia is locked into high emissions and climate change denial.

Last year our Treasurer announced cuts of $213m to the Biodiversity Fund and $144m to the Carbon Farming Initiative, and native vegetation is in nation-wide decline.

Almost half of Australia's terrestrial ecosystems are threatened, 85 per cent of its rivers have been modified and twice as many Australians die from air pollution annually than road accidents, according to a report on the state of the country's environment.

42 environmental growth have cooperated to bring us this damning report, and hopefully will be a wake-up call that we are living beyond our means, and must change.

SMH: Australia's environment is going backwards

Places you Love . One cannot ignore the irony of the title of the report, that we "love" these unique Australian places, that many of us hold dear to us from childhood, holidays and where we live, but also destroy with wanton cruelty and reckless haste.

The introduction to this report states that:
More than 85% of rivers in Australia have been modified due to irrigation, dams other development pressures.
Of the sixty-eight zones of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’s most significant agricultural region, only one zone is rated in good health. Thirty-eight zones are rated in poor health and twenty-one in very poor health.

Ongoing impacts of development and disturbance and the projected impacts of climate change will result in further decline of freshwater resources. Almost one-third of the 851 nationally important wetlands in Australia do not have adequate water supply or flow to maintain their health.

It's an abysmal state of affairs, similar to the wreckage and mess left by the punters and party-goers after Melbourne Cup day at Flemington!
The party is over, and there's few people cleaning up the "mess" of environmental devastation!

Places You Love is landmark survey of Australia’s environment – our rivers, energy, climate, food, forests, waste and pollution, land management, oceans and reefs.

Climate change

We will likely see four degrees of warming by the end of this century.
Two degrees of climate warming will likely mean the loss of most coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef, 80% of freshwater wetlands from Kakadu National Park, and Queensland’s tropical forests.

Air Pollution

More than 3,000 Australians die each year from air-pollution-related illness, nearly twice the national road toll.
Each Australian family contributes enough rubbish each year to fill a three-bedroom house from floor to ceiling, and the total amount of waste generated in the future is projected to increase.

Oceans

Since 1985 more than half of the coral cover of the Great Barrier Reef has been lost. Remaining coral cover is predicted to be lost with two degrees warming through climate change. Ocean acidification, a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions, is poised to change marine ecosystems profoundly by increasing dissolved CO2 and decreasing ocean pH, carbonate ion concentration, and calcium carbonate mineral saturation state worldwide.

Feral animals and plants

Invasive species have significantly contributed to extinctions in most regions of Australia,including more than 40 native mammals, birds and frogs.

Habitat Change

We cleared an average of 1 million hectares of native vegetation per year between 2000 and 2010. At least 50% of all wetlands in Australia have been drained, filled or destroyed.
1259 plants, 396 animals and 67 ecological communities are listed as threatened by the Australian Government.

Destruction and fragmentation of habitats are major factors in the global decline of species, the modification of native plant and animal communities and the alteration of ecosystem functions. We are a leading nation when it comes to extinction, and our unique species that have had millions of years to adapt to our fragile existence on a variable and harsh landscape are being wiped out in record levels.

(image: CSIRO - soil erosion)

Forests

Of an original 235 million hectares of Australia’s forests and woodlands, 44% or about 104 million hectares have been cleared since European settlement. 36% was cleared before 1972 and 5% after 1972 – representing 85.7 million and 11.5 million hectares respectively
The clearing has been offset by the regrowth of 2.9% of the original cleared area.

In the absence of clearing, forest and woodland losses are presumed to be due to causes such as fire, drought or disease like die-back. Non-clearing losses have accounted for 5% of the area changed in the last 20 years.

Of the 50.5% of forests and woodlands that have not been cleared or lost due to non-clearing events, 20.5% were converted to non-forest at some point after 1972 and are therefore in disturbed condition.

Humans in Australia

By 2100, Australian population is projected to be between 42 and 70 million people. Total consumption per person in Australia is one of the highest in the world, and is projected to increase by up to 27% by 2030, with far-reaching impacts on nature including biodiversity, land use, climate and water.

By 2050, energy consumption in Australia is projected to increase by around 21%, with only 14% coming from renewable sources.

As you read through the data you will see our natural world is struggling to sustain itself. Nature is in decline and the natural beauty of Australia is under threat.

Firstly, in Australia we have neither a comprehensive picture of the health of nature, nor a complete understanding of the impacts of any decline in nature on our own wellbeing. We may be intellectually and technologically the most "advanced" and highly evolved species on the planet, but we must be the most retarded species when it comes to being aware of our own impacts on our life-supporting habitats for ourselves, and other species in our ecosystems.

Second, our institutions, globally and in Australia, are not optimized to address the increasingly complex and and the importance of adopting broader definitions of integrated challenges arising at the interface of social, sustainable wellbeing as a frame for effectively valuing
economic, technological and environmental concerns5. and protecting nature.

Human intellect remains myopic and shallow when it comes to the health of the environment, and our own spaceship Earth! Our governments' and institutions' tunnel-vision, based on short-term greed and economic benefits rather than long term strategies for living sustainably, and within Nature's limits.

Third, our understanding and definition of human wellbeing may be far too narrow. Some people and groups may be doing extraordinary things for nature, inspiring us all to better value and protect what we have, but they remain voices in the wilderness, on the peripheral, not in the mainstream. Animal species may impact on their environment, but not so that it can't spring back and recover! Humans, on the other hand, seem to incapable of limiting their desire to take more than they can, and it's justified by "economic growth", greed, traditions and culture!

Finally, the term ‘sustainability’ is used far too loosely in regard to humanity’s impact on nature. Depending on the context, it is often not measured, is poor. The word is too subjective, vague, and has been over-used and has become an oxymoron. The word has been stuck on almost any implementation or institution, including human growth, and thus a contradiction!

Population growth

"The most influential driving forces on nature are population growth and developments in the needs and activities of individuals, as expressed through material extraction and consumption. Population is projected to grow up to 42-70 million by 2100.”
So, our dying ecosystems, and diminishing natural resources, will be deliberately further stretched by governments tweaking our population growth through high and unsustainable rates of immigration! It expecting a moribund body, in the throes of death, forced to keep breaking stones and climb mountains!

Our population is projected to increase to between 36.8 million and 48.3 million in 2061, and reach between 42.4 million and 70.1 million in 2101 (Figure 3)33. The projected development of infrastructure (e.g. housing, transport, water supply, energy, communications) strongly correlates with anticipated population growth, reflecting the longstanding pattern of association among these variables. Of course, the report does not mention that our population growth is not due to natural growth, of births over deaths, but due to a bipartisan policy of "big Australia", high rates of net overseas immigration, and housing - a major industry in Australia!

To add to the slow death of our environment, the pain will be exacerbated by Australia consuming more resources per person than most
other nations on Earth. We consume about 35 tonnes per person per year. By contrast, an emerging nation like India consumes about 5 tonnes per person, while the US and 2.5 Japan consume about 28 tonnes.

The report concludes that while there is currently no long-term plan for the future sustainable development of Australian society, there is a growing movement of passionate and active communities across Australia, taking action to ensure their own futures.
These actions are collaborative, innovative and proactive, and gathering momentum by the day.

However, these groups passionate for change and for our nation's environment are usually sidelined, or marginalized, due to our limited democratic system, and an economic model based on capitalistic growth, and short-term gain at the cost of the welfare of future generations of all species. The "party" is over, and Australia's growth-based economy based on increasing consumerism must end - or we wreck the land that gives us food, water, sustenance, functioning ecosystems, and all that we "love" about our country!

(image: CSIRO Salinity affected land )

Glen Klatovsky – Director was National Campaigner for The Wilderness Society, leading the campaign to stop a gas hub at James Price Point. Glen was the Carbon Business Manager for Greening Australia. He was also Director, Advocacy for WWF-Australia.

SYDNEY: Just a week after another fatal shark attack in Australia, University of Sydney PhD candidate and shark policy expert Christopher Neff is leading a world-first project to help reduce the public’s fear of sharks.

The project, entitled ‘Taking the Bite Out of Jaws: An evidence-based look at public fear of sharks’, is part of the Shark Week activities running until Saturday this week at Sea Life Sydney Aquarium.

The research will use 10 iPad touch-screens to survey Aquarium visitors when they enter and exit the Aquarium’s ‘Shark Valley’ exhibit to register their perceptions of sharks after witnessing different science- and conservation-based messages.

“Movies and television have made scaring people about sharks the easy part. This research is trying to find a new way to reduce public fears of sharks,” said Neff.

“This study uses iPads to survey people before and after they walk through an underwater tunnel with sharks swimming over them. We are looking at what messages lower people’s concerns about sharks because this can create more opportunities for shark bite prevention and conservation education.”

Following the week of survey collection, the statistical data will be analysed to seewhich messages are the most effective to reduce fears. Once the results have been reviewed, the survey will be adjusted and the project will be tested at other aquariums around the world.

Shark Week activities at Sea Life Sydney Aquarium are supported by the Sea Life Conservation Fund and the Save Our Seas Foundation.

For other candobetter.net articles on sharks see: the Secret life of sharks by Peter Kimley (book review) and "Jaws 2009, Coming soon to your shores" about how the monster shark in Jaws was actually a metaphor for property developers ruining local democracy and landscape.

Labor MP David Bradbury must correct error riddled conservation funding announcement (NSW), says Geoff Brown, Stable Population Party candidate. Mr Brown, who is a New South Wales natural conservation activist, has long fought to retain Cumberland plain woodland against attempts by governments to allow it to be destroyed for massive suburban developments. He believes now that the ALP has tried to take credit for his concept of the Cumberland Conservation Corridor. Geoff is running as a candidate for the Stable Population Party.

Mark Butler, the Federal Environment Minister, and David Bradbury, Labor member for Lindsay and the Assistant Treasurer, have been called on by Geoff Brown, the Stable Population Party candidate for Lindsay, to set the voters of Lindsay straight, after Lindsay's leading local newspaper, the Penrith Press, printed a half page story riddled with errors and misinformation about Labors 2010 federal election commitment of $7.5 million towards the establishment of the Cumberland Conservation Corridor.

Geoff Brown, also the President of the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance, developed the concept for the Cumberland Conservation Corridor in 2005, and at the 2010 election ran as an Independent using preference negotiations with Labor and Liberal to extract the $7.5 million deal from Labor. So he is on top of this issue. Several articles published by candobetter.net show his record on this matter. See Cumberland plain woodland and Geoff Brown.

Brown described himself as "livid" when he read the Penrith Press article which erroneously stated that Labor had announced $7.5m towards establishing the Cumberland Conservation Corridor. He said the article made it look as if Labor had just made some new 2013 committment. He said the voters of Linsay would be confused.

"The story should have been about why it took 3 years to fulfill their 2010 commitment. The article was littered with errors based on the dubious media release put out by David Bradbury and Mark Butler. If not corrected it will let Labor off the hook in Lindsay from announcing any new local conservation funding outcomes for the 2013 election. Labor may try to fudge their way out of it”.

Geoff Brown called on David Bradbury and Mark Butler to front the voters of Lindsay and tell them:

" - That neither Labor nor Liberals have yet promised any new conservation money in Lindsay for the 2013 election
- The announcement cited by the Penrith Press was from the 2010 election and it took 3 years to cobble together an outcome
- The Mulgoa biobanking site stays in private ownership so will not become part of the publicly owned Mulgoa Nature Reserve. So no net public benefit or use for education
- The Mulgoa site was never at threat of development and was already protected under Penrith Councils LEP which zones it E2 Environmental Conservation (I argued that money be better spent trying to conserve bushland in Penriths north at risk of development)
- That nearly half of the $7.5 million was spent on land care projects that are outside the Lindsay electorate and nowhere near the proposed Cumberland Conservation Corridor. Projects such as those in the Blue Mountains and the Cranebrook wetland project are not anywhere near the CCC
- That $3.4 million funding for weed removal and the planting trees is exactly what Tony Abbott proposes with his Green Army and Direct Action policy. This outcome condones the Liberals policy
- That 2000 ha of local bush land has not been protected (David’s MR and his letterbox propaganda claims he has saved 2000 ha of local bush land. He is claiming to have protected the 558 ha Airservices Australia land at Shanes Park and 1300 ha of bush at the Orchard Hillls Defence Establishment. These sites are not formally protected. Shanes Park has the proposed Castlereagh Freeway running through it)
- That biobanking is a scheme whereby there is a net loss of habitat. Bushland gets bulldozed with developers offsetting that clearing by funding the management of bushland elsewhere. In this case the State funding came from the clearing of critically endangered bushland in the Sydney Growth Centres. It is a highly dubious method of conserving nature.
- That the land owner is not raising his income from selling the biobanking credits. He gets a guaranteed $6.6 million as the joint Federal and State funding has already purchased the credits."

Labor caught out moving the fence posts

Geoff Brown added that Labor has been caught out trying to change the location of the Cumberland Conservation Corridor. As an example he cited the wetlands at Cranebrook near the Waterside housing estate as being 'nowhere near' the CCC.”

Mr Brown says that Lindsay voters need to be aware that Labor has not yet committed any new money towards conserving bushland within the Cumberland Conservation Corridor.

Mr Brown met last week with Mark Butler and David Bradbury calling on them to fund the protection of 1500 ha of Priority Conservation Land north of the ADI Site that is threatened. He says that the 50 ha of Mulgoa land was already zoned for protection but this 1500 ha of bushland has no such conservation zoning.

In his opinion, the only way it will be zoned for conservation by Penrith Council is if there is money on the table to buy it.

"The voters of Lindsay need to join with the Stable Population Party in calling on Labor and Liberal to commit to protecting this land.”

A better, not a bigger Australia

Mr Brown concluded by saying that to his knowledge, the Stable Population Party is the only minor political party in Lindsay actively lobbying Labor and Liberal about protecting the environment and limiting more urban sprawl and traffic congestion. He said that voters could rest assured that the Stable Population Party stands for a better not a bigger Australia.

Here comes an ATV -- second time today
Everybody scatters and hopes it goes away
How much sensitive habitat have they've murdered only God can say
If I had a rocket launcher...I'd make somebody pay (with apologizes to Bruce Cockburn)

Duncan MacTavish
Recreation Officer,
Discovery Coast Recreation District
Ministry of Forests
Campbell River, BC

Dear Mr. MacTavish,

As you are a busy man, you may or may not recall a long conversation I had with you regarding the increasing menace of off-pavement “wreck”-creational vehicles on Quadra Island and elsewhere in this province.

While I am sympathetic to your predicament---- victimized as you are by savage staff level cut-backs by this disasterous Provincial government, an inability to comprehensively monitor or police the woods, inadequate legislation to deal with reckless use of off road vehicles, and the growth of a powerful off-road vehicle lobby----I nevertheless find your Ministry’s proposed solutions woefully unsatisfactory. Requiring these vehicles to display licence plates is of little benefit if the people who drive them are passing you at high speed, and who are typically hostile to anyone who would attempt to stop them for a closer look. And continuing to give over vast tracks of land to these “responsible” groups to further compromise an already beleaguered ecosystem is simply outrageous. (Outrageous, but politically smart. It is sad to reflect that while in 1968, Canadians were awed by a Prime Minister who showed off his passion for hiking, camping, canoeing and fishing, in 2013 we have a Prime Minister who in a photo op in the Yukon last August, willingly offered himself as a gleeful ATV rider to prove that he was a fun-loving guy just like the rest of us. Some fun. Some role model. But a symbol of our times. Instead of Aldo Leopold we get a pathetic Evil Kneivel-wanna be who should be advised to pick a hobby that burns calories.) http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/23/stephen-harpers-atv-arctic-photo-op-backfires/

Rather than repeat the arguments I made to you last summer, I thought it best to refer you to the nine page analysis made by my friend and ally, veteran ecologist, wildlife scientist and retired professor from the University of Calgary, Dr. Brian L. Horejsi. (attached “BC Parks in Jeopardy: Doors opening to vehicles on Trails” February 2013). While Dr. Horejsi's focus in this paper is on mountain bikers, his arguments apply with equal force to "motorized" offroad vehicles, which he has targeted in some of his other writings.

Among the many incisive comments that Dr. Horejsi makes, this is one is of particular relevance to forestry and park “management” in BC:

“The pathological premise that continued human and industrial consumption of the biocapacity of public lands (by for example, mountain bikes and bikers) can be “managed” at the impact end (on the trail) as opposed to the decision making “end” (before it starts) threatens dramatic interference with the ecological function of Provincial Parks as we know them today.”

Mr. MacTavish, I know that you are not responsible for Provincial government policy or Ministry directives. You are a harried public sector servant (as I once was) trying to use what powers and influence you have to mitigate what we both think is a serious challenge. I simply want you to read Dr. Horejsi’s analysis, think about it, and pass it on. Perhaps with a change in government in Victoria this coming May, these ideas will find a more receptive audience in the cabinet room and in the upper echelons of the appropriate Ministries than they have in the past dozen years.

On the other hand, even the Official Opposition---presumably the “government-in-waiting”---operates in the prevailing culture. A boorish, hedonistic, self-centered commercial culture where largely young, male thrill-seekers with a “a deep-seated attitude of denial, entitlement and disrespect” have successfully organized to displace hikers and walkers who look to escape from machines to find solace and solitude in the quiet pleasures that nature once allowed. Many of the people who will vote for this victorious party are themselves captive to this addiction to reckless speed, noise and aggression. It is a mentality that I cannot abide, and will oppose to my dying day. But my expectations of any government in this environment are few.

In other words, I will not hold my breath. Bring on $200/barrel oil.

Tim Murray Quathiaski Cove, BC February 4, 2013

Jill Quirk (President Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) Victorian and Tasmanian Branches, and National Representative) will host Dr Geoff Mosley to speak at the AGM, this Saturday, 7/7/2012, at 2PM. Dr Mosley was Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 1973 to 1986 and is currently the Australian Director of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy. Given the raging population growth and six new suburbs bearing down upon our Green Wedges, SPA Victoria's AGM is of great importance to Victorians.

Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian and Tasmanian branch) Annual General Meeting

On- Saturday July 7th at 2.00p.m.
At -Balwyn Library Meeting Room, 336, Whitehorse Road, Balwyn, Victoria.

There will be an election of office bearers for 2012-13- at the meeting. Financial members are invited to nominate for any of the following positions- president, vice president, treasurer, secretary, or committee member (5 positions)

Guest Speaker, Dr Geoff Mosley

Following formal business our Guest Speaker, DR GEOFF MOSLEY, will reflect on his 60 years of involvement with conservation, the lessons learned, and the way ahead.

John Geoffrey "Geoff" Mosley (born 14 September 1931) was Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 1973 to 1986 and has had a lifelong interest in preserving wilderness. His contributions were acknowledged in 2005 when he was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia in the Queen's Birthday Honours. In June, 2008 he was named as the Individual Award winner in the Australia World Environment Day 2008 Awards. In 2008 he also became the Australian Director of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Mosley

“Westerfield” –destroyed in 2010 for the construction of the Frankston By-pass in 2010.

Venue details: 336 Whitehorse Rd
Balwyn VIC 3103, Australia
Tram number:109
Melway ref. 46E8

Contact: Jill Quirk- 0409742927 jillq[AT]optusnet.com.au or vic[AT]population.org.au

Electricity privatisation continues to cause bizarre consequences as yet another State Premier will apparently do anything to push it through, despite almost total lack of electoral support. See our history of attempts to privatise electricity in NSW. It reads like a war on democracy. Now that war is against the State's wildlife. During his first week in government, the NSW Premier, Barry O`Farrell, made a strong promise to environment groups and the people of NSW that he would not allow shooting in National Parks. Now he has done a deal with the Shooters and Fishers Party so that they will support his electricity privatisation bill. Shame on Barry, Shame on the Shooters and Fishers who many see as just another front for the Libs in NSW, posing as another party.

Barry O'Farrell gunning down democracy

The Premier of NSW has today broken a pre-election promise to keep recreational shooting out of our National Parks. He has announced that the government will be opening up 34 National Parks, 31 Nature Reserves and 14 State Conservation Areas across the state to recreational hunters.

During his first week in government, the Premier made a strong promise to environment groups and the people of NSW that he would not allow shooting in National Parks. Now he has done a deal with the Shooters and Fishers Party so that they will support his electricity privatisation bill.

National Parks are for the protection of nature and for the enjoyment of the NSW public, not for blood sport. This decision by the government shows complete disregard for public safety and for the purpose of our National Park system.

The government is ‘greenwashing’ this deal as a way of managing feral animals, but control of feral animals is best achieved by professionals, not by sporting hunters.

If you are as horrified about this as we are, please take a few quick actions:

1) Give your local member a call today and tell them how you feel about this appalling decision. You can follow this link to look up your local MP's contact details.

2) Visit the SMH website and vote in their poll against shooting in national parks. (Poll closes at midnight 31 May.)

3) If you have time, please write a letter to editor (either of your local paper or one of the State-wide papers), and/or make a call to talkback radio about this issue.

4) Comment below this article.

The National Parks Association of New South Wales (NPA) has a number of key concerns about this decision:

1) The purpose of National Parks is to protect the environment and allow the quiet enjoyment of nature, not for blood sports.

2) This decision poses a huge risk to the safety of the public, who just want to bushwalk, have a picnic or enjoy nature with their families.

3) Control of feral animals should be left to the professionals. Recreational hunting is not an efficient or cost-effective tool for feral animal control in National Parks, and may have serious impacts on our native wildlife.

4) This is a major betrayal of the public by the Premier, who has consistently promised that there will be no recreational hunting in National Parks. It is completely unacceptable for our protected areas to be used as a pawn in a political trade-off.

See below for a list of parks that the government proposes to open up for shooting.

The website of the Invasive Species Council has more information about why so called 'conservation hunting' by amateur hunters is not an effective means of controlling feral animals.

"The NSW and Victorian governments have been funding recreational hunting and opening access to public lands on the basis that hunters can control feral animals.

But evidence (including the failure of numerous bounties) shows that, at best, hunters can supplement more effective methods of feral animal control or provide control in small, accessible areas.

Funding recreational hunting as a primary method of control is a waste of taxpayers’ money. There is also the risk that opening up public lands to hunting creates an incentive for maverick hunters to shift feral animals into new areas – as has occurred particularly with pigs and deer.

The Invasive Species Council has been working with other environment groups to oppose the NSW Shooters Party legislation to expand hunting into national parks, allow private hunting reserves, and permit the release of exotic birds rated as a serious or extreme pest threat by Australian governments."

More information at National Parks Association of New South Wales.

Affected National Parks, Nature Reserves and State Conservation Areas

The government is proposing to immediately consider opening the following National Parks, Nature Reserves and State Conservation Areas up for shooting.

National Parks 

Nature Reserves

State Conservation Areas

Source: Kirstin Proft
Biodiversity Conservation Officer
National Parks Association of NSW
PO Box 337 | Newtown 2042 | New South Wales
T 02 9299 0000 |
W http://www.npansw.org.au | E [email protected]
Watch us on youtub!

In a shocking announcement outside his San Francisco office, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune,---who only succeeded Carl Pope to that position less than two years ago--- told surprised reporters that he was stepping down in favour of an android developed by technicians attached to an Artificial Intelligence laboratory financed by Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens. The android will replace Brune and everyone else on the Sierra Club payroll.

Introducing Robo-Pop(e), Mark II

It seems that even the bloated bureaucracies of mainstream environmental organizations are feeling the pinch of the Great Recession, forcing labour-saving economies on even the richest of them. The latest move by the Sierra Club therefore makes sense. Since their high-priced front men have given us robotic answers to perennial questions, why not replace them with a bona-fide robot who will work on the cheap, as American workers have been forced to after the influx of 12-20 illegal immigrants which the Sierra Club has refused to oppose? Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce "Robo-Pop(e) Mark II, designed using long-term Sierra Club director Carl Pope as a template.

Robo-Pop(e) (pictured at right), who goes by the anthropomorphic Christian name of “Carlos”, has now become the sole voice of the Sierra Club, the flagship organization of the environmental movement.

Shocking announcement

In a shocking announcement made before a hastily assembled press conference outside his San Francisco office, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune,---who only succeeded Carl Pope to that position less than two years ago--- told surprised reporters that he was stepping down in favour of an android developed by technicians attached to an Artificial Intelligence laboratory financed by Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens. The android will replace Brune and everyone else on the Sierra Club payroll.

Response to criticism

The move apparently came in response to long-standing criticism that the bloated $100 million annual budget of the Sierra Club was consumed by an expensive bureaucracy of careerists intent upon growing the Club by continuing to ignore the root cause of America’s environmental degradation (overpopulation). As long immigration-driven population growth remains unaddressed, critics noted, a growing myriad of environmental problems would afflict the country and citizens would turn to the Sierra Club for help, thus ensuring a steady stream of donations and membership dues. Rather than return to its former policy position of favouring restricted immigration, however, the Board of Directors elected to cut costs by appointing an android who would perform all the duties hitherto assigned to the President, the Vice-President, the Treasurer, the Executive Director, the Executive Chairman, the Secretary , the Fifth Officer and ten directors.

      
Michael Brune and  Executive Chairman Carl Pope, are now both out.

Efficiency move

 In “decoupling” the Sierra Club from human guidance,  the outgoing Board has effectively supplanted the robotic control of one entity, the Executive Director, with another ---Robo-Pop---- as well as a dump the salaries and benefits that accrued to employees,  including medical, dental, vision, life insurance options, flexible spending accounts, an employee assistance program, free Sierra Club membership, discounts on Sierra Club outings and books, long term disability insurance, generous holiday and vacation policies as well as a 401k pension plan. As Robo-Pop will work for nothing and live beyond human extinction, the Sierra Club hopes to cut its overhead by 99% and offer proof to its corporate benefactors that it can screw the working class as well as they can.

Carlos speaks Spanish, but that's not all ...

It should also be appreciated that Robo-Pop, or “Carlos” as he is affectionately known  to outgoing staff-----a name made to appeal to illegal Hispanics whom the Club hopes to recruit in gratitude for its stand in favour of porous borders and unenforced federal immigration law---- has been designed to integrate corporate priorities into its deepest thought processes, so that the Club’s donor base can be secured.

 In addition to an amazing array of attributes, which include the ability to take dictation and type at 3,000 words a minute while answering 100 incoming phone calls simultaneously----Robo-Pop  is programmed to speak Spanish and Arabic to appeal to the growing demographic the Sierra Club hopes to pander to as the United States hurtles toward a population of a half billion by mid-century. Nevertheless, Greenwash will remain as the Official Language of the Club, enabling it to network with other mainstream environmental NGOs on the corporate take. Moreover,  Robo-Pop, it has been learned, will also have a regular column with Huffington Post.  Technicians were careful to hardwire ‘progressive’ political cant into its neural circuitry, so that it can lace its doublespeak with words like “diverse”, “inclusive”, “vibrant”, “cooperative”,  “sustainable”, “just” and “equitable”.

Sierra Club tradition of 'smart growth' continues

To test the new “broom”, we phoned the Sierra Club head office and sure enough, Robo-Pop replied in Spanish monotones. Then, after pressing “3” for Greenwash, Robo-Pop spewed out a string of green buzzwords and oxymoronic phrases like "smart growth", referred us to the website for inquiries about population policy and then promptly hung up. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Tim Murray
October 17, 2011

This article makes it clear that energy consumption and its fall-out, pollution, have enormously increased over two or three generations, to a point where actions commonly recommended to minimise them, are laughably inadequate. It also highlights a tendency for one generation to be encouraged to blame another generation for overconsumption, rather than to blame the market system, which benefits from the social conflict.

In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day."

He responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soft drink and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so the same bottles were used over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But we didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's nappies because we didn't have the disposable kind. We dried clothes on a line,not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their siblings, not always brand-new.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV or radio in the house, not several. And the TV screen was the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not as big as the size of a blanket!

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used screwed up old newspaper to cushion it, not styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn fuel just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.

We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the train or a bus, and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of their mums being a 24-hour taxi service.

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint !

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person.

Hhhh!.....The Green Thing

Source: Anonymously emailed article

Something very shonky is going on in Canberra with unjustified massacre of kangaroos. As the previous blog mentioned, no science to back it up.
Learn some more facts and take action! We can only stop this if lots of people take action!

Two years ago the Canberra Environment and Sustainability Resource Centre wrote a compelling document explaining how kangaroos help the environment in so many ways. It was written at a time when another big cull was being decided so of course Maxine Cooper, the Commissioner for the Environment, ‘culled’ the document and demanded return of funds paid to CESRC, and the document can now only be found online at http://www.nokangaroomeat.org

And here we go again! It’s that time of the year boys and girls, when the shooters get out their guns and have a shooting spree till the end of June and wipe out thousands of beautiful, healthy, environmentally friendly, gentle kangaroos and their babies, the national icon we are all so proud of that we put its image on our aeroplanes, on logos ‘Proudly Australian Made’ and title our best rugby teams. (See http://candobetter.net/node/2063 )

Science or Fun?

Yet we also ‘humanely’ (of course) shoot the females, bash the offspring to death or chop off its still living head or leave the at-foot joeys orphaned to die alone, cold, hungry and afraid without their mother’s love and protection. And why? So we can feed to our dogs naturally. Also for fun.

Precious joeys like these will be bashed to
death or left to starve, broken hearted

In this case, it’s just for fun. Why? Because there is no science to back up these ‘culls’.

Daniel EIglesias from ACT Parks and Conservation talks about a kangaroo population ‘explosion’ within Canberra’s Nature Reserves. He says up to 3,427 kangaroos will be shot.

He says that ACT Parks has calculated the numbers by ‘sitting back and thinking how many kangaroos can these areas sustainably manage so we can have a healthy population of kangaroos, but also healthy populations of other animals.’

How incredibly scientific of them. I think nature has a way of balancing out populations very nicely, thank you Mr Iglesias, without man’s interference. In fact, every time man interferes, he ‘stuffs up’. Ever wonder why Australia has the worst reputation in the world for mammal extinctions sir? It’s because of government departments like yours, sitting comfortably back and playing God, rearranging the pawns in the game of Wildlife versus Man.

He goes on without giving any evidence so far of actual kangaroo numbers in the parks or any evidence of certain species being ‘threatened’ by kangaroos. He’d be hard pressed to come up with any proof like that, considering that kangaroos have been living in harmony with other species for up to 16 million years.

In fact, according to that report by the Canberra Environment and Sustainabillity Resource Centre, kangaroos help many species to survive, quite the reverse.

After that he expresses concern that grasslands and woodlands could be overgrazed by kangaroos, again with no evidence that it is happening, or in fact, has ever happened. There is no evidence, anywhere, of that. It’s all just a big myth.

And then he maligns our poor kangaroo for ‘soil loss’. Our soft-padded native kangaroo, creates soil loss. What about introduced feral livestock with hard hooves, wouldn’t they cause soil loss? Indeed, but they are off ACT Parks’ radar.

Parks assures us that while the cull is higher this year than last not to worry because it isn’t too many compared to the general kangaroo population. Is Iglesias comparing the numbers of kangaroos to be killed in Canberra’s Nature Reserves to the total numbers there or is he comparing numbers to be killed to the total kangaroo population of Australia?

No matter how good a year they have had, what with rainfall etc, each kangaroo can only give birth to one per year and of those born there is an 80% attrition rate, meaning only 20% survive. So it’s not like their population can double in 12 months. Besides the new kangaroos are still only joeys, 12 months old and dependent on their mothers. That means this year’s ‘cull’ will be primarily the killing of joeys since the ones not killed the previous year who are approaching 2 years of age are still not adults and only just independent of their mothers.

Media Links

How sad and shameful. Read the media release at:-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/02/3233396.htm

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/annual-cull-targets-3427-roos/2183173.aspx

http://canberra.iprime.com.au/index.php/news/prime-news/up-to-3427-kangaroos-to-be-culled

Express your outrage

Hard questions need to be asked. For example:-

1. Has there been an official count of kangaroo populations on the six reserves where the killing is to take place?

2. Where is the proof and how did they arrive at the numbers?

3. Since the quota is 75% of the total estimated populations (3,427 out of 4,482), and since last year was a drought, where is the precautionary principle in action?

4. What if there is a drought next year (or any other disaster or epidemic disease which kangaroos suffer from) and you wiped out 75% last year, how can that be regarded as sustainable especially when the commercial quota is only 15-20%?

4A. Did you forget about the high to extreme risk or even certainty of a cascading of extinctions of various endangered species (insects, lizards etc.) if all kangas were removed altogether? Kangaroos are considered a keystone species in the ecosystem, that all other species relied upon for reasons relating to kangaroo dung. This means that if Parks "overshoot" with their killing total estimates and end up leaving no kangaroos in a particular area, that is likely to have a devastating impact on the species reliant upon the kangas' presence, including the endangered ones.

5. While kangaroos have lost their natural predator, the dingo, they now have a much more formidable predator i.e. humans (via habitat loss, feral dogs, foxes, barbed wire fences, cars, farmers with guns, hoons) and that is not even counting bushfires and drought. Why is Parks not factoring this in?

6. If there is no overgrazing by kangaroos and overgrazing causes loss of habitat and soil, why the concern for endangered species now or into the future? Don Fletcher's thesis clearly shows that there is no relationship between kangaroos and overgrazing, so kangaroos endangering species is a myth.

7. Why isn't Parks ACT introducing fertility controls (such as at Belconnen in 2008) or relocation.

8. Why aren't there wildlife corridors to help kangaroos move on should there be no more food for them in the future? If they could move out, there would never be a need for killing or relocating them.

9. What is the cost (yes the public is entitled to know) of shooting 3,500 kangaroos?

10. Will you be killing the in-pouch joeys or throwing them live into the pits with their dead mothers?

11. Will orphaned and bashed joeys be included in the death count?

12. Has there been any factoring in for kangaroos who will die from stress myopathy in coming weeks as a result of watching their families get murdered and fleeing in terror?

13. Would Parks ACT be willing to consider an urgent quote for relocation of the 'surplus' kangaroos?

14. Are livestock allowed to graze on Parks and Lands properties? If so, wouldn't that be more of a concern with regard to soil loss and overgrazing?

15. Has Parks ACT given any consideration to the effect of their 'culls' on wildlife-loving Australians, many of whom are right now unable to sleep or eat, suffering from depression and anger because of this 'cull'? What else would drive them to leave the comfort of their homes at night in sub-zero temperatures to go to the Nature Reserves and try to intervene, risking not only their health but also their lives (in case they are shot) and potentially their police records and finances (in case they are charged and fined)?

Contact the following:-

* [email protected] (Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability + Environment)

* [email protected] (Project Co-ordinator, Mulligans Flat Woodland Sanctuary)

* [email protected] (Chair – Steering Committee, Conservation Parks + Lands)

* [email protected] (Member of Parks and Lands)

* [email protected] (Member of Parks and Lands)

* [email protected] (Member of Parks and Lands) (02) 62 071-911

* [email protected] (Dr Tony Peacock, CRC for Biological Control of Pest Animals) 02 62 725 525

* [email protected] (Dr David Shorthouse, Member Parks ACT, Visiting Fellow ANU - 02 61-250 663)

* [email protected] (Dr Penny Olsen, ACT Flora and Fauna Committee Representative 02 61 252-536)

* [email protected] (Dr Adrian Manning, ANU, member Parks ACT 02 61 255-415)

* [email protected] (ACT Minister for the Environment, Simon Corbell MLA)

* [email protected] (ACT Chief Minister – Katy Gallagher)
http://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm (PM Julia Gillard)

* [email protected] (Federal Minister for Environment, Tony Burke)

* [email protected] (RSPCA endorses all ACT culls)

*****

Or better still, go to Canberra and be present to watch and document the sordid massacre of our country’s national icon and their babies. That is one thing the killers hate, to be watched doing their dirty deeds. You might even be called to a protest. I hope there will be a huge one in Canberra one day, the sooner the better, with thousands of people rallying against the largest slaughter of land-based wildlife on the planet - i.e. kangaroos.

GETUP PETITION:
Please vote for the kangaroos. You can use up to 10 votes per issue. At present kangaroos are at #79 so we need more votes. Please get the word out to your friends. Thanks.
http://suggest.getup.org.au/forums/60819-campaign-ideas/suggestions/1142043-stop-the-shocking-cruelty-in-the-kangaroo-trade?ref=title

You hear people like Rob Adams and Marcus Spiller saying there is nothing you can do about population growth in Victoria and Australia. Wrong. For a start the government should cancel the Live in Victoria website that invites people to come to Victoria and which explains how to get a visa. There is one in every state (Qld, NSW, the ACT, Tasmania[1], SA, WA, NT). They should all be pulled off the web.

Results of Melbourne population poll, added to this article on 16 April 2011.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/citys-population-explosion-20110331-1cng1.html

Having been involved with trying to save Melbourne from overdevelopment for many years, numerous conservation and environment activists are convinced that no government can manage the speed and magnitude of growth.

It's bleeding obvious.

So tell them at The Age. Comment and vote via the link supplied to a poll in The Age today. And stop buying property. That only lines bankers' and developers' pockets and gives them more power over politicians. The Age is not Melbourne's 'better' newspaper, it's just a a huge international property developer and financier. So is the Australian, with www.realestate.com.au. That's the real news. Sadly it's a long time since there was much real news in those papers.

Then tell the Feds that we want to reduce Melbourne's population so stop importing so many immigrants. For years now Victorian Premiers have been demanding more immigrants of the federal government in order to please big business. Make our leaders care about democracy.

Nothing is inevitable unless you let it be so.

The Victorian Coalition has admitted that funds don't exist to finance the infrastructure needed to stuff all these new people in with a giant shoehorn - so why do we want even more people?

The answer is that we don't want them; the property developer and financier-run government does.

Tell those parasites to get the infrastructure fixed and then ask us again and listen to the answer.

Global capital exploits overpopulation so we must regulate global capital to get democracy.

If one checks the policies of the Australian Greens Party ('The Greens') on its website the non-environmental conservation ones are shown with a * (see below).

Of The Greens' 44 policies, some 28 are NOT directly about environmental conservation. Many policies are about Left social justice issues such as civil rights. Nothing wrong with caring for people, but what's happening to the commitment to care for the forests - The Greens bread and butter?

The benefit of taking on a broader policy platform is that The Greens have shrugged off the stigma and core criticism of being only a single issue party (an environmentalist ('green') only party. In doing so, The Greens have become more mainstream.

The problem is that the 'green' effort has been diluted toward human issues with Left socialist and civil rights agendas, which means 'The Greens' label has become a misnomer. 'Green' has become 'Pink'. Many of its policies are now human pink.

Many environmental conservation groups seeking active support from The Greens are invariable disappointed by the thin on-ground support. The Greens do not have a mandate on conservation politics. They don't even in many cases have a contributing presence.

The Greens origins in 1972 with the United Tasmanian Group started out supporting the Lake Pedder Action Group (LPAG) in trying to save Tasmania's Lake Pedder from being flooded for hydro-electricity.

Lake Pedder was eventually flooded. The Tasmanian Greens went on to save the Franklin River in Tasmania

and on to bigger and broader causes. Many of the current policies have now nothing to do with environmental conservation and in so doing have diluted their commitment to environmental conservation.

It's no wonder that many traditional Labor voters are now aligned this political party. Conversely, it is no wonder that The Greens' dilution of conservation has created a political vacuum in environmental conservation politics in Australia.

But you be the judge...

GREENS POLICIES

(as at Halloween 2010):

* = policy has nothing to do with environmental conservation

Agriculture & Natural Resources
o Genetically Manipulated Organisms
o Natural Resources
o Sustainable Agriculture

Care for People
o Childcare*
o Children and Young People*
o Disability*
o Drugs, Substance Abuse and Addiction *
o Education*
o Health*
o Housing*
o Immigration and Refugees*
o Indigenous Australians*
o Multiculturalism*
o Older People*
o Sexuality and Gender Identity*
o Social Services*
o Sport and Physical Recreation*
o Women*

Climate Change and Energy
o Climate Change and Energy
o Nuclear

Environment
o Animals
o Biological Diversity
o Environmental Principles
o Marine and Coastal Areas
o Population
o Waste
o Water and Inland Aquatic Environments

Human Rights & Democracy
o Community Participation in Government*
o Constitutional Reform and Democracy*
o Global Governance
o Human Rights*
o International Relations*
o Justice*
o Overseas Aid*
o Peace and Security*

Media, Arts & Science
o Arts*
o Media and Communications*
o Science and Technology*

Sustainable Economy
o Corporate Governance*
o Economics*
o Employment and Industrial Relations*
o Global Economics*
o Sustainable Planning and Transport.

I make four summary observations of The Greens as follows:

1. The original environmental conservation effort of The Greens has been steadily diluted and distracted as the Party has (1) sought more mainstream acceptance and (2) invited under its wing those with non-environmental conservation agendas - I have collectively branded these 'pink' - which is intentionally open to interpretation - 'pale Red', 'alternative lifestyle', 'liberal values', 'civil rights activists', but distinguishably human focused, not environmentally focused!

Hence much of The Greens polices are now grouped under 'Care for People', 'Human Rights & Democracy', and 'Media, Arts & Science.'

The Greens are suffering a classic 'quality for quantity compromise' and in seeking mainstream popularism have become a clichéd jack of all trades and master of none. Worse, they risk alienating their original environmental conservation ideological support base.

2. Scores of socialists and humanists disaffected within Australia's dominant Left-wing party - the Australian Labor Party (ALP) have become disillusioned by Labor's gradual Center-Right direction and by its corrosive factional politics. Many have defected to The Greens. In turn they have influence the direction of The Greens and the Greens in their conciliatory habit have modified their policy effort to adopt more and more 'pink' social justice agenda. With this 'accommodation' The Greens core environmental conservation focus is being diluted by increasing 'pink' 'Left-leaning', social justice policies.

3. The core driver of environmental degradation (including pollution, habitat loss, species extinctions) is the exponential human population increase and the unchecked encouraged consumerism per capita. More people in the same area causes more pressure on the environment - simple logic!

Climate change is merely a background broad incremental consequence; it is the consequence, not the driver of the environmental problems!

Brown and his Greens have sided with the population control lobby but only in vague in-principled support. Reason for the token support is that the new pink allegiances and policies adopted by The greens have inherently compromised the ability of The Greens to achieve a consensus on a population control policy that would be effective in reducing its environmental impact.

The Greens are now beholden to its 'pink' policies on social justice, yet have failed to recognise that both social justice problems and environmental problems are compounded by excesses in human population.

4. The genteel, academic and legalese make up of The Greens leadership has shaped a group think culture of idealistic passiveness with any change management specifying a conciliatory approach. A lack of effective principled 'balls' has meant a failure to take the conservation fight to the protagonists - the selfish property developers, property speculators, stock market, the banks, the growth lobby, the big corporate exploiters, the self-sustainable captains of industry and industrialisation.

Is it then any wonder, with The Greens beholden to a 'pink' agenda displacing their environmental conservation core, that conservation groups are disaffected with The Greens and that we are experiencing the emergence of a fresh wave of political groups fill the political void?

* Australian Protectionist Party
* Stable Population Party of Australia
* Australia First Party (NSW) Incorporated of which I acknowledge being an active member.

Conclusion

If The Greens continue down their popularist vote grabbing 'pink' path, it is only a matter of time before the critical mass of environmental conservation disaffection in The Greens realises a need for an alternative genuine 'green' party to emerge. Personally, a political wing of The Wilderness Society has best chance of achieving that. There is logic in this assessment, but that is another article.

Japanese whaling pirates raiding Australia's southern whale sanctuary every year poach all the whales they want, spin their exposed lie of scientific research to a complicit whaling commission bureaucracy that must exist only for the club sandwiches at meetings.

And what has Rudd-the-Dudd done to protect Australia's southern ocean and indeed its sovereignty from raiding Japanese poachers arriving from some 10,000km to the north? Squat, except publicly froth and bubble yet with no action like all his other core and non-core populist empty promises.

Sea Shepherd, in its Antarctic Whale Defense Campaign, has been doing Australia's Naval border protection job for Australia's regional oceans. It's defence vessels, the Steve Irwin and Bob Barker have recently completed their sixth voyage to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary to oppose the illegal whaling activities of the Japanese whaling fleet.

"For three straight weeks from February 5th until February 26th we prevented the entire Japanese whaling fleet from killing a single whale. The month before, we had shut the whalers down for twelve days giving us thirty-three solid whaling-free days, which is one-third of their whaling season. In addition, our actions forced the harpoon vessels Shonan Maru 2 and the Yushin Maru 3 to break off from whaling activities to serve as security vessels to oppose Sea Shepherd interventions, and this prevented these two vessels from killing whales for almost the entire season."

In late 2009, it was announced that New Zealand's record breaking Earthrace bio-fuel powerboat, repainted black and named Ady Gil, would be participating in anti-whaling operations under the lead of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

'On January 6, 2010, in blatant disregard for the safety of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society crew, the Japanese whaling vessel Shonan Maru No. 2 attempted to sink the Ady Gil off the coast of Antarctica.

Video taken from the Japanese vessel Shonan Maru 2 confirm that the skipper of the Shonan Maru 2 made a deliberate starboard turn toward the Ady Gil, thus intentionally causing a collision at sea. This Japanese video from the Japanese Shonan Maru 2 is prima facie evidence of Japanese malicious intent to collide:
You Tube video proof of Japanese intent to collide

Refer: Japanese whaler rams and sinks anti-whaling vessel in Antarctic on candobetter.org website by Sheila Newman, 7th January, 2010.

NZ skipper of the Ady Gil at the time of the collision, Pete Bethune, then boarded the Shonan Maru 2 to make a citizen's arrest of the Japanese captain and handed over a $US3 million (NZ$4.5 million) bill for the destruction of protest ship the Ady Gil that sank after a confrontation a month earlier.'

Instead, the Japanese crew arrested Bethune and imprisoned him on the vessel and took him to Japan. Japan charged Bethune with 'trespassing' of all things on the Shonan Maru II, (which was itself trespassing). Japan has charged Bethune as if Japan still considered itself a pre-WWII imperial dictatorship. Japan has charged Bethune with injuring a crewman, obstructing commercial activities, vandalism and carrying a weapon. Pirates enforcing a kangaroo court. If convicted, Bethune could face up to 15 years in jail. And what of the criminal actions of the Japanese skipper of the Shonan Maru 2?

On 25th February 2010, Rudd-the-Dudd apparently 'warned' Japan that "diplomacy comes to an end this year" on whaling, after presenting a bold plan to phase out the controversial killing of hundreds of minke whales in Australia's Southern Ocean.

Rudd-the Dudd then proclaimed for the cameras:

"We are saying loud and clear to our friends in Japan that Australia does not support the continuation of commercial or scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean, we have a very basic position...and that if Japan cannot come forward with a proposal which reduces its current catch to zero over a reasonable period of time, then we have no alternative but to initiate appropriate legal action."

Words Kev! Politics is more than words - re-read the PM governance manual!

Bethune's US lawyer Dan Harris said last night the activist would admit trespass, possession of a weapon, damage to property and obstructing commercial activity, but deny the most serious charge of assault, which was based on allegations that he was responsible for bottles of rancid butter - a stenching agent known as butyric acid - being thrown at Japanese sailors.

Greens Senator Bob Brown says it is horrendous that a New Zealand anti-whaling activist is facing the prospect of a lengthy jail term in Japan.

Senator Brown says it seems to have been forgotten that the Japanese whalers ran down Mr Bethune's ship, the Ady Gil, endangering the lives of the six people on board.

He says Mr Bethune and his crew were almost killed when the Shonan Maru II rammed their ship.

"It's time that Canberra and Wellington took up that matter with the Japanese government and with great vigour prosecute the Shonan Maru's captain and his crew, who took part in that illegal act in destroying the Ady Gil," he said.

Senator Brown is urging Australia take retaliatory legal action.

"The Australian Federal Police and the New Zealand police are investigating that sinking of the Ady Gil and the Australian and New Zealand governments should be pursuing with great vigour that investigation and charges against the whaling fleet," he said.

[Brown wants Australia to retaliate in whaling furore by ABC North Asia correspondent Mark Willacy,2nd April 2010]

And what is Rudd doing to represent the legal welfare of an Australian citizen defending Australia's ecological sovereignty, and illegally captured on the high seas by Japanese whaling pirates?

Rudd is the most anti-Australian prime minister we have the misfortune to have trusted. Rudd should retire and move to East Asia.

In defence of whales from poaching, in light of an Australian Government roaring mouse complicit in its idleness, bring on concerted propeller wrapping of all Japanese vessels till they are immobilised. Old fishing nets with cabling would be effective, especially at night.

I am not in favour of labelling any defence action as "unprovoked". Once the Japanese rocked up to poach whales in the Southern Ocean they themselves provoked justifiable defence - all gloves off!

Defence of whales and defence of Australia's territorial waters and declared whale sanctuary, justify not killing the poachers but immobilizing and disabling their 'capacity to poach'.

A few sunk Japanese ships would bring the issue to a head and get vacillating Chinilpa Rudd off his fence. He should show some leadership by working with NZ and Pacific Ocean nations to place a Oceania-wide moratorium on refuelling, servicing or supply of any Japanese vessel engaged in fishing, whaling research across Oceania. No fuel, no whaling! The whalers cost to run an alternative fuel ship would make their poaching adventure cost prohibitive. A similar ban should apply to Japanese seconding charter aircraft. These naval samurais would then skidaddle back to Japan with their swords between their legs.

Japanese have no place poaching in our Southern Ocean!

World Wetlands Day

World Wetlands Day is celebrated each year on 2 February to mark the anniversary of the signing of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention) in Ramsar, Iran, 1971.

Australia was one of the first countries to sign the Ramsar Convention and designated the world's first Wetland of International Importance, Cobourg Peninsula Aboriginal Land and Wildlife Sanctuary in the Northern Territory, in 1974. Australia has 65 Wetlands of International Importance, covering approximately 7.5 million hectares. A report from the previous government says Australia has 65 wetlands of world significance listed under the Ramsar treaty, but water management requirements of only 11 sites are known in any detail. Roughly half of Australia's Ramsar wetlands are not adequately mapped, and information is so disorganised.

Report on Rising sea levels

AUSTRALIA must create a new, expanded network of protected wetlands around its coastline or see many bird, animal and plant species become extinct as sea levels rise, a recent House of Representatives report says. While coastal areas appear to be the worst hit, it found
Kakadu National Park is particularly vulnerable.

The Northern Territory Environment Centre's Stuart Blanch says storm surges can already push saltwater tens of kilometers up nearby rivers and the risk will increase with rising sea levels.

The report was made by House of Representatives standing committee, chaired by Labor MP Jennie George. Her recommendations include calls for greater protection for coastal wetland, the increase in size of coastal buffer zones and the creation of pathways for migration of animals. If adopted, any perceived threat to the Great Sandy Strait Ramsar wetlands from the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam would effectively kill off the $1.8 billion project. That the dam will have “minimal downstream impacts” is being touted despite of the fact that even very preliminary assessments highlighted probable impacts on Ramsar wetlands, and numerous studies since have shown this to be the case. However, with Anna Bligh's growth at all costs, how far will our Federal "environment" minister take seriously recommendations contrary to growth?

The Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts is calling for the classifying more coastal wetlands as sites of international significance under the Ramsar convention.

Third wave of extinctions

Wetlands support high levels of biological diversity and they are amongst the richest ecosystems on this planet. According to environmentalist Tim Flannery, we are heading towards a third wave of extinctions. However, "so miserable is the funding, and so immense the task, that species are slipping away before (scientists') eyes, even in the best-protected wildernesses".

According to Birds Australia, many species, such as waders and other waterbirds, are threatened by changes to wetlands and coastal environments. These can be in the form of altered environmental flows, drainage of wetlands, and reduced water quality through salinisation.
(Australian pelican)

Ramsar listed wetlands significant for waterbirds

The lake systems, particularly the Ramsar listed wetlands, are important for waterbird conservation. Victoria's Western Port has several marine national parks and is internationally recognised under Ramsar as a wetland of significance for migratory birds.

Conservation vs Development

Since European settlement, Victoria has lost more than 37 per cent of its wetland areas to degrading processes such as land clearing and draining. An alarming 90 per cent of this loss has occurred on private land. Strong population growth is projected for areas within our own Geelong to Ballarat corridor, and coastal areas proximal to Geelong including Ramsar wetlands near Lara and on the Bellarine Peninsula. About 18,000 Western Port properties valued at nearly $2 billion are considered vulnerable to flood. Nationwide, more than 700,000 coastal properties with a combined worth of about $150 billion are potentially at risk, the report finds. This is where housing expansion and further developments are happening, and this is not Kakadu but close to home!
Impacts from residential and commercial developments in wetland areas include urban run-off, loss of species and the risk of wandering domestic animals impacting on the site.

Serendip wildlife sanctuary threatened by developers

Serendip is a wildlife sanctuary situated in the foothills of the You Yangs and is a fantastic place to view some of our more special native animals. Being only 25 minutes from Geelong or just over half an hour from the centre of Melbourne. Serendip has had world wide recognition for many of its breeding programs including two of the states rarest birds Australian Bustards and Bush Thick-knees. However, the council has labelled land near the sanctuary to be "high priority for residential development"! Residents near the site have said previously that a housing subdivision could be disastrous for Serendip's breeding programs, with the possibility of cats and dogs on the loose.

Mr Garrett has one job and in that job he is to protect the environment. Instead of surveys, habitat conservation and breeding programs, "business as usual" is the normal approach!

Australia's shame - possible Ramsar delisting

In the nearly 40-year history of the Ramsar Convention, the possible delisting of the Coorong would give us a very special black mark for being the first country to delist a site of this size due to mismanagement. If the predictions are correct the Coorong could become more saline than the Dead Sea, the site will be unrecoverable.
A member of the Ramsar task force says the lower lakes of the drought-hit Murray could be delisted also as wetlands of international significance. Logging continues to provide jobs and income for local communities. The forests include wetlands listed under the international Ramsar Convention and the NPA argued that the habitat of federally-listed endangered species was at risk.
Dairy production takes place in all states, but it is particularly significant in Victoria, where more than 60 per cent of all dairy farming enterprises are located. It is no wonder that South Australia's end of the Murray-Darling Basin is drying up as it is being consumed before it reaches the Coorong!
(Coorong Salt Creek)

Consumption of users vs entitlement of the environment

Victoria in spending tens of millions of dollars trying to improve water penetration to parched Red Gum forests on the Murray River. Of the 31 billion litres of "environment" delivered last year,
18.5 billion was spread across the Murray and Northern Victoria.
Environment Victoria spokeswoman Juliet Le Feuvre said Victoria's system of water entitlements was set up to meet the needs of consumptive users rather than the environment.

''Until the environment has an entitlement that is adequate and suitable to meet its needs, it is going to be disadvantaged,'' she said.

Any wetland with a Ramsar status should mean that it cannot be used for housing due to its international significance. We have schemes and corridors to increase human population-growth, but indigenous non-human species are being overlooked even though they have a vital role in essential life-supporting ecological systems. What we need is a Federal Minister FOR the Environment, not one that continues to give priority to jobs, income and developments at the expense of our already stressed wetland ecosystems.

The following disturbing article was found on the ABC website: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/01/2701495.htm?site=news "Farmers are illegally slaughtering thousands of wombats in South Australia, a nature group says. Brigitte Stevens from the Wombat Awareness Organisation says burrows of southern hairy-nosed wombats are being bulldozed or blown up on Yorke and Eyre Peninsulas and in the Murraylands.

She says farmers can get permits to destroy a few wombats, but that it not a licence to wipe out the entire population.

"There's not enough or not good enough regulations on what actually happens to the wombat if those numbers are being killed," she said.

"Now I know it's difficult because I know you need a lot of staff to be able to do that. But it's really hard for us when we're trying to stop people killing them illegally - if it's allowed by the government through permits, how are we going to stop it?"

Ms Stevens wants the Department for Environment and Heritage (DEH) to act on evidence the group has gathered.

"We've also got evidence, photographic, and also I've kept all my correspondence with DEH, the RSPCA about places that we've reported that have ended up having destruction permits, but we've got evidence the animals are being buried alive, the entire population is being killed on that particular property," she said.

Department for Environment and Heritage chief executive, Allan Holmes, says it will act when enough evidence is provided.

"You need to know where it's occurred, when it occurred, it's about providing evidence that will stand up in a court of law," he said.

"Again the issue for me is at the moment these claims are largely unsubstantiated.
"If the evidence is provided we will investigate them."

Mr Holmes says mass killings with petrol bombs or bulldozing will not be tolerated.
"The only way that you can legally destroy a wombat is by shooting with a particular calibre rifle," he said.

"And, as I said, given the evidence we will prosecute with the full force of the law."

Thousands of litres of oil, gas and condensate has been leaking into the sea from the West Atlas rig since August 21 from a wellhead near PTTEP Australasia's West Atlas oil rig, 250km from shore.

(photo Wikipedia Commons)
The spill measured 70 by 20 nautical miles, with sheen visible in 25 per cent of that area, Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said.

It has been reported that the slick — measuring about 30 meters wide and 15 kilometers long — is about 250 kilometers northwest of the Kimberley coast.

An estimated 400 barrels of oil a day is leaking from the well head platform, according to the company.

Despite comments from Federal Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson and WA Premier Barnett playing down the impact of this spill it is clear that a disaster of this scale will have serious and ongoing impacts on a range of marine life.

A relief well being drilled 2.6km under the sea to plug thousands of tonnes of oil leaking from a rig off the West Australian coast has passed the halfway mark, the company responsible for the disaster saying yesterday that it had now drilled 1.6km without incident. But PTTEP Australasia, which owns the stricken West Atlas rig, extended the deadline for completing the complex repairs, admitting it would take at least another three weeks.

The region where this spill is occurring is a ‘marine superhighway’ for a range of species including over 19 species of Whales and Dolphins, including the Humpback Whale. Sea Snakes, many bird species, fish and other wildlife will also be impacted. Dr Gilly Llewellyn, WWF Australia's conservation director, says the affected area is home to many rare species.

The federal Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Department, Peter Garrett, confirmed some wildlife had been affected, although the full extent of the damage remains unclear. The Northern Territory Environment Centre says proof the oil slick is killing birds gives more weight to calls for new protected marine areas in the region.

The Opposition's environment spokesman, Greg Hunt, says it should pay for an independent organisation, such as Charles Darwin University or James Cook University, to carry out a survey of marine life.

The Australian Government says so far no whales or other marine mammals have been harmed by a large oil spill off the country's west coast despite the fact that fishermen are bringing in animals that have died as the result of the spill!

However, nine seabirds, four now dead, have been caught up in the slick, according to staff of the Environment Department working on Ashmore Reef.

There have been no checks so far around the rig on any effects of the oil on turtles, whales or sea snakes known to frequent the area. A private environmental consultant's report commissioned by the WWF has found 15 species of whales and dolphins, 30 seabird species and five turtle species could be affected by the oil slick. The report finds the spill could end up harming 30,000 sea snakes, which fisherman have already reported finding dead in the ocean nearby, and 16,000 turtles.

The diverse and ecologically crucial coral reef habitat of Ashmore Reef is also threatened should the spill reach this area 150km from the leaking rig.

The Kimberley region is home to one of the most significant coral reef provinces in the world. There is no good reason to put the Kimberley environment at further risk – certainly not economic. Mr Garrett is preparing to release areas in the resource-rich ocean north-west of Australia to become potential marine conservation zones.

In the 1970’s Australia said ‘No’ to oil and gas mining in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and went on to implement what was then the world’s largest marine park. The GBR now contributes well over $5 billion in sustainable income annually to the Australian economy and supports thousands of jobs.

The Marine Conservation Society's Prue Barnard says it is part of the Government's commitment to create a network of marine parks by 2012. She says the recent oil rig leak off the Kimberley coast underlines the need for sanctuaries.

“The region where this spill is occurring is a ‘marine superhighway’ for a range of species including over 19 species of Whales and Dolphins, including the Humpback Whale”, TWS said in an open letter to federal environment minister Peter Garrett on August 28.

From June to November each year, humpback whales make their way home to calving grounds just north of Broome, where they stay for four months with their calves. The Kimberley coast is crucial habitat for the humpback whale, a protected species in Australia. We wouldn’t plan a freeway through a maternity hospital and expect it to continue?

The Kimberley region of northern WA is one of the world’s great natural and Indigenous cultural regions. Its vast savannah landscapes, wild rivers, extensive wetlands, spectacular coast and rich marine environments provide a multitude of habitats that are home to an extraordinary diversity of species.

The Wilderness Society is calling on the Federal Government to declare a moratorium on further approvals and expansion of the oil and gas industry in the region.
Environment groups including the Wilderness Society are calling on the State and Commonwealth Governments to:
-Immediately place a moratorium on oil and gas development on the Kimberley coast until government planning processes are complete.
- Establish large marine sanctuary zones - with the consent of the Traditional Owners
- to protect the globally significant marine biodiversity in this region, including Humpback whales in the vicinity of James Price Point.

Pledge your support

(Photo from Wikepedia commons - share permit)

During the 20th century Russia and the United States carried out many military manoeuvres with dolphins, who acted as underwater couriers for the Navy. Generally, the dolphins’ missions were affixing bombs to enemy ships! In October 2000, Russian retired most of their dolphins. These Russian Navy dolphins now swim with sick children to help them recover from their illnesses. Recent studies have shown that dolphins have remarkably curing powers, especially with small children.

Some researchers think that dolphins are perhaps as smart as a seven-year-old! Dolphins are some of the most interesting and intelligent creatures on our planet. They are considered very friendly and are amongst the most wonderful animals on earth due to their intelligence and easy mingling with the humans.

Dolphins can make a unique signature whistle that may help individual dolphins recognize each other or perform any other kind of communication still unknown. They seem to speak a language unknown to humans.

Some people think that these friendly creatures can understand human thoughts and moods. They are gentle and playful when humans swim with them. It has also been observed that dolphins frequently stroke each other with their flippers, hence, indicating that they require physical contact much like humans. A dolphin's skin is extremely delicate and easily injured by rough surfaces--very similar to human skin.

Dolphins love to look at themselves if a mirror is nearby. They will have a look of disgust at any imperfection on their bodies, such as a black circle. Dolphins are social creatures, not only because they like people, but also because they like to swim together.

Off the western coast of Australia, bottlenose dolphins place sponges over their snouts, which protect them from the spines of stonefish and stingrays as they forage over shallow seabeds.

Dolphins are quick learners. Calves stay with their mothers for several years, allowing the time and opportunity for extensive learning to take place, particularly through imitation.

In Ancient Rome and Greece, scholars thought that dolphins had special healing powers and were good omens if they appeared during the launch of an ocean voyage.

According to Dolphin Human Therapy of Key Largo, Florida, and its founder, Dr. David Nathanson, an innovator in this type of treatment, many illnesses and disabilities are receptive to interactions with dolphins. While it is not known exactly what mechanism is at work, the success rate with many illnesses is a positive result of this alternative therapy. Because they are hyper-sensitive to vibrations, dolphins are touted by alternative healers as excellent therapists. Supporters of dolphin therapy claim that the compassion the dolphin displays improves your self-confidence. The improved self-confidence can develop social and academic skills.

Dolphin activist Ric O'Barry partly blames the International Whaling Commission for ignoring the suffering of dolphins and porpoises. They haven't stop Japan's fake "scientific research" whale killings in the Whale Sanctuary either! Even conservation organisations dismiss the dolphin and other wildlife massacres as unfortunate and cruel, but "sustainable"! Surely we could also dismiss human mass tragedies and natural disasters if we ignore individual suffering and just consider surviving numbers?

Japan's defence is the existence of our abattoirs. For the Japanese, the slaughter of dolphins is no more inhumane or inherently wicked than the slaughter of sheep or cows! At least livestock have the privilege of stunning and are not hacked to death in agony. However, our "management" of kangaroos would point out our hypocrisy even more!

According to Ric O'Barry, the dolphin meat is loaded with mercury. If the mercury poison doesn’t stop this horrific atrocity, let’s hope the shame brought by the film The Cove does!

While animal rights arguments against the hunt have fallen on deaf ears in Japan, the threat of mercury contamination perhaps will strikes a chord in a country where food safety is rapidly becoming a paramount public concern.

Maybe lack of empathy with non-human creatures is a human evolutionary failure. The Cove's revelation of Japan’s annual obscene dolphin massacre hopefully will stop the horrific blood-bath.

Save Japan's Dolphins site

The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society Australian website has information and action items. You can visit the site and click on "The Cove" button and view what is online:

Send an e-protest to the Ambassador Mr Takaaki Kojima (Japanese Ambassador in Australia)

The Australian Press Council has just dismissed a complaint against Sydney Morning Herald columnist Miranda Devine about her opinion article back on 12-Feb-09 ‘Green ideas must take blame for deaths.’ Devine's provocative article dogmatically accused "the power of green ideology" for poor forest management practices and as the key reason for the exacerbated scale and ferocity of the Victorian bushfires in 2009. ['Complaint against Devine dismissed, SMH, 26-Jun-09, p.5] But although provocative, Devine's 'opinion' article pales in comparison to the social implications of headline media reporting of extreme bushfire risk immediately BEFORE the bushfires! See also "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"

The Australian Press Council has just dismissed a complaint against Sydney Morning Herald columnist Miranda Devine about her 'opinion' article back on 12-Feb-09 ‘Green ideas must take blame for deaths.’ But although provocative, Devine's 'opinion' article pales in comparison to the social implications of headline media reporting of extreme bushfire risk immediately BEFORE the bushfires! ['Complaint against Devine dismissed', SMH, 26-Jun-09, p.5] Note that the date of the article was made while fires still raged. Also, note that the article was published on the front page of the Herald, indicating that the editor was unusually highly supportive of it. Normally, the Herald's 'Opinion and Letter's' articles are printed way back around page 12.

The main inflammatory bits drawing criticism in Devine's article were:
“It wasn't climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend…it was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts.” [and] “If politicians are intent on whipping up a lynch mob to divert attention from their own culpability, it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies.”

Clearly, the article's emotive tone expresses anger, frustration, retaliation and spiteful provocation. Perhaps this is understandable given the scale of the disaster and public shock, disbelief and for many, the personal loss. People react in their own way to tragedy. Devine's article upset many and presumably it was intended to in order to unseat entrenched community complacency about bushfire management.

If so I agree with her motive, but not her method.

The Australian Press Council considered the article's lead paragraphs as 'dogmatic' and 'confrontational'. But the complainants asserted that the article breached a number of Press Council principles. Yet the Press Council's principles or journalism are vague and advocate the rights of journalists rather than prescribing responsibilities. The principles include noble motherhood ideals such as being accurate, fair and balanced, not being misleading, acting in the public interest and not being biased against minority groups. So then perhaps the complainants were misguided and it is not surprising that the Press Council found that publicising the article didn’t breach any of these principles.

Devine was accused of incitement in her article, which is a fair interpretation. On Crikey, Greg Barns questions whether Devine’s article incited violence. He suggests that in “these fraught times, where there is a smell of blood in the air as well as smoke, as communities, individuals and the media look to find someone to blame for the Victorian bushfires, are just the environment where incitement flourishes.” Barns goes on: “To date no one appears to have acted on the inflammatory statements of Ms Devine and her fellow sabre rattlers, but that does not matter, says the law. It is enough that the incitement to commit a offence occurs, it is irrelevant that no one acted on the statement made.” SOURCE: http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/17/did-miranda-devine-incite-violence/

In the press at the time, local anger in Gippsland was palpable and vigilante feeling clearly was at breaking point. But it was targeted at the arsonists.

No-one rationally can blame the conservation movement and its ecological principles for the Victorian Bushfires. The bush and its creatures were innocent victims of the fires, just like people, livestock and houses. Many tend to forget this in the wake of such enormous tragedy. But one must blame the arsonists.

Yet it wasn't apparently just arsonists that caused the ignitions and it is the task of Brumby's Royal Commission to investigate and find out the causes of all the ignitions. However, thereafter, the real problem solving should start, but I doubt Brumby will have the will and instead will want to close the political door on the bushfire tragedy - just like the bushfire investigations of the past and interstate.

But let’s turn more importantly to the media incitement before the bushfires!

The Age newspaper in Melbourne during the Victorian heatwave through January and early February 2009 immediately preceding the bushfires, ran headlines repeating the extreme bushfire risk. On 6 February 2009, the day before the fires started, indeed the Premier of Victoria John Brumby issued a warning about the extreme weather conditions expected on 7 February: "It's just as bad a day as you can imagine and on top of that the state is just tinder-dry. People need to exercise real common sense tomorrow".
Was this wise?

To serial dormant bush arsonists and to would be arsonists, this frenzied media excitement about such pending doom surely would have been been read by arsonists and I suggest directly incited the bush arson. Yet at the time there was no complaining or realisation of this. If bush arsonists are found to have been the key causes of the ignitons and indeed of the most catestrophic firestorms that burt alive people for instance Marysville and Kinglake, then the investigation must focus on the root cause of the arsonist motivations. I argue that media arousal through its sensationalising of the bushfire risk and its portrayal of the bushfire threat is directly responsible and accountable for actual bush arson. Let's see what the Royal Commission concludes.

Getting back to the subject of press responsibility, let’s look at where the Press Council actually prescribes reporting restrictions on journalists. Take the subject of media reporting of suicide. In the Council’s General Press Release No. 246 (i) (July 2001) on Reporting of Suicide, The Press Council “calls upon the press to continue to exercise care and responsibility in reporting matters of suicide consistent with government attempts to curb the suicide rate. Research shows that an association exists between media portrayal of suicide and actual suicide, and that in some cases the link is causal. So the Press Council recommends journalists avoid reporting which might encourage copy-cat suicides and which unnecessary references details of or the place of a suicide, or which uses language which trivialises, romanticises, or glorifies suicide.” [SOURCE: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/activities/guides/gpr246_1.html]

So on the sensitive topic of suicide, the Press Council is quite prescriptive, moreso than in its broader principles for journalists rights.

Serious thought needs to be given by all levels of government and by the Press Council as the media industry's representative body to the reporting of bushfire risks. Just as links can be drawn between the media portrayal of suicide and actual suicide, causal links can be drawn between the media portrayal of bushfire risk and bush arson arousal.

This is a matter for criminal psychology. Media sensationalising of bushfire risk and of bush arson is known to incite bush arson and copy-cat bush arson. This is a little known and neglected form of social deviant behaviour, yet it has become increasingly prevalent and deadly.

There is an urgent need for national level investment into bush arson criminology research and investigations. Media rights and responsibility for reporting bushfires play a critical role, perhaps more than many of us realise.

Defence land in Canberra was cleared of supposedly 514 "starving" kangaroos last year that were “threatening” native grasslands and other species. The public were persuaded and conned by the pseudo-science of kangaroos as environmental pests, and their "humane" deaths as the best scientifically-concluded solution. The 149 hectare site at Belconnen, with 19,000 tonnes of waste including asbestos, is now planned to be developed for between 1100-1300 new dwellings!

Now, Majura kangaroos are blamed for threatening several rare species of grasses, insects and lizards due to habitat degradation. This is despite the fact that sheep have created a dust-bowl across the fence, and unsound farming practices are being ignored.

‘...there is a good reason to obtain access to carcasses from at least one future cull which is conducted to an acceptable sampling design.’ (D. Fletcher, Senior Ecologist, Wildlife Research and Monitoring, Environment ACT)

Mr Fletcher is NOT a vet, yet he wants carcasses to do his research on, to assess their "health"! Doesn't this sound like Japan's illegal and brutal whaling? Whaling continues under thin disguises, like Mr Fletcher's excuse to "cull" kangaroos!

Why are thousands of kangaroos being needlessly cruelly slaughtered at Majura when the facts and figures being used by Defence to justify this action are flawed?

The "threatened species" and native grasses are not at threat from kangaroos! No other science has come to the conclusion that Dr Maxine Cooper has come up with! The REAL threats are urban sprawl, heavy grazing from livestock, invasive weeds, rabbits etc. NOT kangaroos! They have evolved and co-existed together for millions of years and the grazing "pressure" from kangaroos is only about 1/3 of that of a sheep.

There are reliable reports of sheep grazing over the fence and have made a dust-bowl there. Why aren't agricultural impacts being assessed! This pseudo-science is about using "science" to justify a pre-determined outcome - the slaughter of kangaroos that are not wanted in the "Bush Capital".

These animals are on our Coat of Arms, and part of our heritage, part of our biodiversity and landscape. Making them a "threat" is purely pseudo-science so that a confused public is lulled and quietened by a "humane" solution!

Three kangaroos per hectare are quite sustainable, as evident! They are NOT STARVING but in peak condition! One kangaroo per hectare is just a way of ensuring that they die off, due to predation, loss of gene pool, human attacks and traffic.

Defence has not produced data to prove there are 9000 "starving" kangaroos, and what their REAL MOTIVES are! Housing estates are due to be built where the last kangaroo massacre took place at Belconnen! Now they will shoot 6000 roos instead of 3000 of these so-called 'environmental pests'!

There is no way of a "humane cull"! They will be running in fear, and bones will be broken, joeys will panic and be lost from their mothers, and the panic and fear and stress from these animals is well known!

If Defence were telling the truth they would let some trustworthy, independent, non-government-funded wildlife vets, entomologists, botanists and other experts visit to see for themselves, but they won’t because they think they can get away with lies and breaking the law by starting the massacre early.

There needs to be investment in wildlife corridors and crossings over roads. Kangaroos could be quite a tourist attraction, a draw-card for Canberra. This massacre is a scandal for Australia and our “management” of wildlife. We have such an abysmal record of animal treatment in Australia, and this killing field will just add to condemnation world-wide!

See also: Protesters slam 'sneaky' kangaroo cull in ABC online of 9 May 09.
Roo cull under way: 2000 shot in Canberra Times of 5 May 09.

VicForests' neo-colonial practice of logging old growth East Gippsland forests, justifies such culling by claiming compliance with Australia's wood production Standard AS 4708-2007. But this standard is Mein Kampf for ecological genocide of East Gippsland Forests.

Have a read: www.forestrystandard.org.au/files/Standards/4708.pdf

Under this official Australian Standard that sees only the wood for the trees, it includes two criteria that serve to deliver propaganda spin respect for forest ecology. One must recognise these criteria accompanying Criterion 4—Forest management shall maintain the productive capacity of forests. Need I say more?

A tombstone of the once impenetrable
forest. A Mountain Ash stump near a
road in Balnook, Gippsland. Note the
notches cut in the trunk for standing
planks to cut the tree down by axe!

Forestry Propaganda Criterion 3 for instance, requires forest management to 'protect and maintain the biological diversity of forests'. Wonderful wholesome, noble and holistic rumblings about this one - but gullibles wake! VicForests Mein Kampf hides the chainsaw-speak in the detail:

* 'Small-scale clearing is permitted up to a limit of 40 hectares on a single forest management unit'. 'Conservation of threatened (including vulnerable, rare or endangered) species and ecological communities requires the forest manager to minimise adverse impacts by ensuring he/she takes into account of known information and relevant specialist advice'. (Makes Fiji look like a democracy!)

Forestry Propaganda Criterion 5 requires forest management to maintain forest ecosystem health and vitality, yet is so vague as to allow forest 'practices' only to ensure that damage stays "within tolerable levels". Does this mean one tree per hectare can be left standing or may be two? This forestry standard also permits 'forest managers' to ":use fire and other disturbance regimes to maintain and enhance forest ecosystem health where appropriate to the forest type or scale."

Whoops! The wind picked up and the forest is gone; still we complied with AS 4708-2007!

VicForests motto reads: "Victorian Timber: beautiful, natural, functional" [SOURCE: www.vicforests.com.au]
..in lay terms this means kill beautiful natural specimens - they make the finest woodchips for A4 photocopy paper.

© 2008 Friends of the Earth Kuranda
Check: http://foekuranda.org/info/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=31&cid=9

World Forestry Day is another annual celebration of some cause that in this case captures 21st March each year. The concept sounds noble on the DSE site: "World Forestry Day has been celebrated around the world for 30 years to remind communities of the importance of forests and the many benefits which we gain from them. The concept of having a World Forestry Day originated at the 23rd General Assembly of the European Confederation of Agriculture in 1971."

Hang on a second! A "Confederation of Agriculture" here suggests a different set of values than a ecological respect for forests. But I let the Victorian Government's Dept of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) site continue:

"Forests provide many valuable things for the whole community. These include fresh water from forested catchments, a safe home for our flora and fauna, timber for our homes, furniture and paper, beautiful scenery and rugged environments for those who enjoy the outdoors, pollen and nectar for honey production, and archaeological and historical sites."

"Today, Victoria has an area of approximately 22.7 million hectares. About 40% is public land, meaning that it is owned by the State and managed by the government. There are about 4.8 million hectares of publicly owned native forest which is divided into the following categories: National parks and reserves - 1.7 million hectares, State forest - 3.1 million hectares."

"Less than one third of Victoria’s state forests are available for timber harvesting and these forests produce more than two million cubic metres of wood products which return about $50 million in revenue to the State."

Ah Ha! So it's all about revenue FROM our native forests, not a about being FOR our native forests! So why not just rename this greenwashing 'World Forestry Day' what it really is: a celebration of logging - and rename it 'World Logging Day'?

DSE on its site suggests: 'What can I do on World Forestry Day?"
..well children (it targets school children):
"Celebrate World Forestry Day by visiting your local forests and learning more about the many contributions they make to our well-being. For further information and ideas, see our Forest Education Information." This link then takes the children directly to the 'For Schools;' section of its website which sends a key mesage to students that 'forests have many different uses and values." A second link takes children direct to the hardcore logging site of the Department of Primary Industries".
[SOURCE: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenfor.nsf/childdocs/-8E773CD126CA22704A256AA40000EDEE-034EBCC6B1670D984A256AA40011A9F8?open]

Forests should be celebrated in their natural state, not by their exploitative revenue potential. Pity that we are now celebrating these in islands and outside the mainstream media. The contrasting ‘Earth Hour’ hype of late seems so token, yet attracts such mainstream publicity and has even Peter Garrett as its cheerleader! But beyond people thinking about turning off lights, Earth Hour pales in addressing irreversible planet damage compared with any day that recognizes the value of global forests.

Recognising natural undisturbed forests and the ‘green carbon’ benefits they contribute to a healthy global future is more important than token politics. As advocated by Professor Brendan Mackey in an article in EEG’s The Potoroo Review (current Spring/Summer 2008-09 edition, p9), “estimates that around 9.3 billion tones of carbon can be stored in the 14.5 million hectares of eucalypt forest in southeast Australia IF THEY ARE LEFT UNDISTURBED.”

While one supports the celebration of native forests in their natural place, the drawback of World Forestry Day is that the forestry industry has corrupted the word ‘forestry’ into a vernacular meaning of ‘exploitation value’. If one types in ‘World Forestry Day’ to Google (global), one gets the following disturbing presences:

Hit 1: DSE (say no more)
http://www.dse. vic.gov.au/ DSE/nrenfor. nsf/childdocs/ -8E773CD126CA227 04A256AA40000EDE E-034EBCC6B1670D 984A256AA40011A9 F8?open

Hit 2: NSW Department of Primary Industries | Forests (a chainsaw endorsed site)
http://www.forest. nsw.gov.au/ publication/ forest_facts/ celebrating_ trees_forests/ default.asp

Hit 3: Global Education, but linked to DSE (after scrolling down the page)
http://www.forest. nsw.gov.au/ publication/ forest_facts/ celebrating_ trees_forests/ default.asp

Hit 4: Better Health Victoria (another Victorian government website again)
http://www.betterhealth.vic. gov.au/bhcv2/ bhcevent. nsf/pages/ DF43C04B6CC6D19E CA257250007C8F46 ?opendocument

So Australian state governments’ greenwashing has set up prime presence. But also NAFI ( Australia ’s Association of Forestry Industries) http://www.nafi. com.au/news/ view.php3? id=1730

So the motives for World Forestry Day seem nothing more than pro-logging.

The term ‘Existence value’ deserves to be further explored and promulgated, so we can develop a greater non-utilitarian value of our natural and now rare forests. Our precious forest exists for their own sake, the forest ecosystems they support and of which we have so little comprehension of their global existence value and scarcity.

ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, Dr Maxine Cooper, is ACT's inaugural full-time Commissioner in the role, yet what relevant environmental qualifications and experience does the incumbent have, or indeed lack, to be officially condemning another local indigenous popluation of Australia's iconic marsupials, our kangaroos, to slaughter for pet food?
The Environment Commissioner's own website lists her formal qualifications in the areas of Environmental Planning, Environmental Design and Environmental Science. All these 'environmentally' friendly prefixes sound impressive, until one realises that each of these areas of academic study are not fauna focused, but indeed all about human-centric utilisation of the natural environment for the benefit of humans. That is, these qualifications are all about maximising the convenience of the environment for humans. A wolf in charge of the kangaroos?

Such qualifications offer no insight into the survival and habitat needs of Australian wildlife. "According to ACT's inaugural Environment Commissioner, kangaroos at Belconnen were a threat to certain vulnerable and endangered species of fauna and flora on the site. Where's the bloody independent zoological evidence, who would attest to this view under the test of peer scrutiny?

Now if our roo-shooting redneck commissioner had a more relevant Bachelor of Science in Zoology from say the University of Melbourne, she may be of a contrary mindest, less aligned to human planning needs and monetary gains more empathetic to ecological needs of nativa fauna. The introductory paragraph for the University of Melbourne it Honours degree in Zoology online instills the followng focus:

"How animals live and why they live that way are questions addressed by zoologists. Most of the Australian fauna are poorly understood or not even formally named, yet informed management and resource use of Australia's flora, fauna and habitats depend upon zoological knowledge. We need to catalogue what species exist and how they survive in their natural environments. This requires knowledge of their physiology, breeding and reproductive systems, ecology, evolution and behaviour."
[SOURCE: http://www.unimelb.edu.au/HB/areas/SZOOL.html]

Maxine Cooper, where are your qualifications in zoology and in the conservation and Australian wildlife to entitle you to officially condemn thousands of Australia's iconic kangaroos to slaughter for cat an dog food?

Can you guarantee the Australian public that none of these kangaroos is to be minced for cat and dog food?

The standard setting for the job prerequisites for the ACT's Environment Commissioner are woeful and clearly not in the best interests of the target subject - our natural wildlife. What were they thinking by employing a planner in environmental management?

The UN position in 1992 on conserving native forests of the world:

"At the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) the forest issue was among the most controversial, polarizing developing and developed countries. In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, intense negotiations among governments at UNCED resulted in the Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all Types of Forests, also known as the “Forest Principles”, as well as Chapter 11 of Agenda 21: Combating Deforestation."

The latest UN position:

"Following nearly 3 years of intense negotiations, starting from UNFF5 and culminating at UNFF7, the Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All types of Forests was adopted on 28 April 2007. The Instrument was adopted by the UN General Assembly (Resolution 62/98) on 17 December 2007.

The purpose of this instrument is:

(a) To strengthen political commitment and action at all levels to implement effectively sustainable management of all types of forests and to achieve the shared global objectives on forests;

(b) To enhance the contribution of forests to the achievement of the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals, in particular with respect to poverty eradication and environmental sustainability;

(c) To provide a framework for national action and international cooperation."

=========================================================

REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
(Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992)

Annex III

[NON-LEGALLY BINDING AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES FOR A GLOBAL CONSENSUS ON THE MANAGEMENT, CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL TYPES OF FORESTS]

PREAMBLE

(a) The subject of forests is related to the entire range of environmental and development issues and opportunities, including the right to socio-economic development on a sustainable basis.

(b) The guiding objective of these principles is to contribute to the management, conservation and sustainable development of forests and to provide or their multiple and complementary functions and uses.

(c) Forestry issues and opportunities should be examined in a holistic and balanced manner within the overall context of environment and development, taking into consideration the multiple functions and uses of forests, including traditional uses, and the likely economic and social stress when these uses are constrained or restricted, as well as the potential for development that sustainable forest management can offer.

(d) These principles reflect a first global consensus on forests. In committing themselves to the prompt implementation of these principles, countries also decide to keep them under assessment for their adequacy with regard to further international cooperation on forest issues.

(e) These principles should apply to all types of forests, both natural and planted, in all geographical regions and climatic zones, including austral, boreal, subtemperate, temperate, subtropical and tropical.

(f) All types of forests embody complex and unique ecological processes which are the basis for their present and potential capacity to provide resources to satisfy human needs as well as environmental values, and as such their sound management and conservation is of concern to the Governments of the countries to which they belong and are of value to local communities and to the environment as a whole.

(g) Forests are essential to economic development and the maintenance of all forms of life.

(h) Recognizing that the responsibility for forest management, conservation and sustainable development is in many States allocated among federal/national, state/provincial and local levels of government, each State, in accordance with its constitution and/or national legislation, should pursue these principles at the appropriate level of government.

PRINCIPLES/ELEMENTS

1. (a) States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies and have the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

(b) The agreed full incremental cost of achieving benefits associated with forest conservation and sustainable development requires increased international cooperation and should be equitably shared by the international community.

2. (a) States have the sovereign and inalienable right to utilize, manage and develop their forests in accordance with their development needs and level of socio-economic development and on the basis of national policies consistent with sustainable development and legislation, including the conversion of such areas for other uses within the overall socio-economic development plan and based on rational land-use policies.

(b) Forest resources and forest lands should be sustainably managed to meet the social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations. These needs are for forest products and services, such as wood and wood products, water, food, fodder, medicine, fuel, shelter, employment, recreation, habitats for wildlife, landscape diversity, carbon sinks and reservoirs, and for other forest products. Appropriate measures should be taken to protect forests against harmful effects of pollution, including air-borne pollution, fires, pests and diseases, in order to maintain their full multiple value.

(c) The provision of timely, reliable and accurate information on forests and forest ecosystems is essential for public understanding and informed decision-making and should be ensured.

(d) Governments should promote and provide opportunities for the participation of interested parties, including local communities and indigenous people, industries, labour, non-governmental organizations and individuals, forest dwellers and women, in the development, implementation and planning of national forest policies.

3. (a) National policies and strategies should provide a framework for increased efforts, including the development and strengthening of institutions and programmes for the management, conservation and sustainable development of forests and forest lands.

(b) International institutional arrangements, building on those organizations and mechanisms already in existence, as appropriate, should facilitate international cooperation in the field of forests.

(c) All aspects of environmental protection and social and economic development as they relate to forests and forest lands should be integrated and comprehensive.

4. The vital role of all types of forests in maintaining the ecological processes and balance at the local, national, regional and global levels through, inter alia, their role in protecting fragile ecosystems, watersheds and freshwater resources and as rich storehouses of biodiversity and biological resources and sources of genetic material for biotechnology products, as well as photosynthesis, should be recognized.

5. (a) National forest policies should recognize and duly support the identity, culture and the rights of indigenous people, their communities and other communities and forest dwellers. Appropriate conditions should be promoted for these groups to enable them to have an economic stake in forest use, perform economic activities, and achieve and maintain cultural identity and social organization, as well as adequate levels of livelihood and well-being, through, inter alia, those land tenure arrangements which serve as incentives for the sustainable management of forests.

(b) The full participation of women in all aspects of the management, conservation and sustainable development of forests should be actively promoted.

6. (a) All types of forests play an important role in meeting energy requirements through the provision of a renewable source of bio-energy, particularly in developing countries, and the demands for fuelwood for household and industrial needs should be met through sustainable forest management, afforestation and reforestation. To this end, the potential contribution of plantations of both indigenous and introduced species for the provision of both fuel and industrial wood should be recognized.

(b) National policies and programmes should take into account the relationship, where it exists, between the conservation, management and sustainable development of forests and all aspects related to the production, consumption, recycling and/or final disposal of forest products.

(c) Decisions taken on the management, conservation and sustainable development of forest resources should benefit, to the extent practicable, from a comprehensive assessment of economic and non-economic values of forest goods and services and of the environmental costs and benefits. The development and improvement of methodologies for such evaluations should be promoted.

(d) The role of planted forests and permanent agricultural crops as sustainable and environmentally sound sources of renewable energy and industrial raw material should be recognized, enhanced and promoted. Their contribution to the maintenance of ecological processes, to offsetting pressure on primary/old-growth forest and to providing regional employment and development with the adequate involvement of local inhabitants should be recognized and enhanced.

(e) Natural forests also constitute a source of goods and services, and their conservation, sustainable management and use should be promoted.

7. (a) Efforts should be made to promote a supportive international economic climate conducive to sustained and environmentally sound development of forests in all countries, which include, inter alia, the promotion of sustainable patterns of production and consumption, the eradication of poverty and the promotion of food security.

(b) Specific financial resources should be provided to developing countries with significant forest areas which establish programmes for the conservation of forests including protected natural forest areas. These resources should be directed notably to economic sectors which would stimulate economic and social substitution activities.

8. (a) Efforts should be undertaken towards the greening of the world.
All countries, notably developed countries, should take positive and transparent action towards reforestation, afforestation and forest conservation, as appropriate.

(b) Efforts to maintain and increase forest cover and forest productivity should be undertaken in ecologically, economically and socially sound ways through the rehabilitation, reforestation and re-establishment of trees and forests on unproductive, degraded and deforested lands, as well as through the management of existing forest resources.

(c) The implementation of national policies and programmes aimed at forest management, conservation and sustainable development, particularly in developing countries, should be supported by international financial and technical cooperation, including through the private sector, where appropriate.

(d) Sustainable forest management and use should be carried out in accordance with national development policies and priorities and on the basis of environmentally sound national guidelines. In the formulation of such guidelines, account should be taken, as appropriate and if applicable, of relevant internationally agreed methodologies and criteria.

(e) Forest management should be integrated with management of adjacent areas so as to maintain ecological balance and sustainable productivity.

(f) National policies and/or legislation aimed at management, conservation and sustainable development of forests should include the protection of ecologically viable representative or unique examples of forests, including primary/old-growth forests, cultural, spiritual, historical, religious and other unique and valued forests of national importance.

(g) Access to biological resources, including genetic material, shall be with due regard to the sovereign rights of the countries where the forests are located and to the sharing on mutually agreed terms of technology and profits from biotechnology products that are derived from these resources.

(h) National policies should ensure that environmental impact assessments should be carried out where actions are likely to have significant adverse impacts on important forest resources, and where such actions are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.

9. (a) The efforts of developing countries to strengthen the management, conservation and sustainable development of their forest resources should be supported by the international community, taking into account the importance of redressing external indebtedness, particularly where aggravated by the net transfer of resources to developed countries, as well as the problem of achieving at least the replacement value of forests through improved market access for forest products, especially processed products. In this respect, special attention should also be given to the countries undergoing the process of transition to market economies.

(b) The problems that hinder efforts to attain the conservation and sustainable use of forest resources and that stem from the lack of alternative options available to local communities, in particular the urban poor and poor rural populations who are economically and socially dependent on forests and forest resources, should be addressed by Governments and the international community.

(c) National policy formulation with respect to all types of forests should take account of the pressures and demands imposed on forest ecosystems and resources from influencing factors outside the forest sector, and intersectoral means of dealing with these pressures and demands should be sought.

10. New and additional financial resources should be provided to developing countries to enable them to sustainably manage, conserve and develop their forest resources, including through afforestation, reforestation and combating deforestation and forest and land degradation.

11. In order to enable, in particular, developing countries to enhance their endogenous capacity and to better manage, conserve and develop their forest resources, the access to and transfer of environmentally sound technologies and corresponding know-how on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Agenda 21, should be promoted, facilitated and financed, as appropriate.

12. (a) Scientific research, forest inventories and assessments carried out by national institutions which take into account, where relevant, biological, physical, social and economic variables, as well as technological development and its application in the field of sustainable forest management, conservation and development, should be strengthened through effective modalities, including international cooperation. In this context, attention should also be given to research and development of sustainably harvested non-wood products.

(b) National and, where appropriate, regional and international institutional capabilities in education, training, science, technology, economics, anthropology and social aspects of forests and forest management are essential to the conservation and sustainable development of forests and should be strengthened.

(c) International exchange of information on the results of forest and forest management research and development should be enhanced and broadened, as appropriate, making full use of education and training institutions, including those in the private sector.

(d) Appropriate indigenous capacity and local knowledge regarding the conservation and sustainable development of forests should, through institutional and financial support and in collaboration with the people in the local communities concerned, be recognized, respected, recorded, developed and, as appropriate, introduced in the implementation of programmes. Benefits arising from the utilization of indigenous knowledge should therefore be equitably shared with such people.

13. (a) Trade in forest products should be based on non-discriminatory and multilaterally agreed rules and procedures consistent with international trade law and practices. In this context, open and free international trade in forest products should be facilitated.

(b) Reduction or removal of tariff barriers and impediments to the provision of better market access and better prices for higher value-added forest products and their local processing should be encouraged to enable producer countries to better conserve and manage their renewable forest resources.

(c) Incorporation of environmental costs and benefits into market forces and mechanisms, in order to achieve forest conservation and sustainable development, should be encouraged both domestically and internationally.

(d) Forest conservation and sustainable development policies should be integrated with economic, trade and other relevant policies.

(e) Fiscal, trade, industrial, transportation and other policies and practices that may lead to forest degradation should be avoided. Adequate policies, aimed at management, conservation and sustainable development of forests, including, where appropriate, incentives, should be encouraged.

14. Unilateral measures, incompatible with international obligations or agreements, to restrict and/or ban international trade in timber or other forest products should be removed or avoided, in order to attain long-term sustainable forest management.

15. Pollutants, particularly air-borne pollutants, including those responsible for acidic deposition, that are harmful to the health of forest ecosystems at the local, national, regional and global levels should be controlled.

END OF DOCUMENT

Radiocarbon-testing has confirmed that a giant rare old-growth Eucalyptus regnans located in its natural forest habitat on East Gippsland's Brown Mountain has been chainsawed by VicForests, despite it being scientifically confirmed to be at least 500 years old.

No regard has been made for the existence value of a Victorian 500 year old natural asset, nor the habitat requirements for the typical arboreal animals and forest owls dependent on this old growth habitat tree or its associative forest dependent habitat. Under State-sanction, ignorant VicForest butchers have plundered, ransacked and run.

Manager, Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, Orbost, Steve DeVoogd, has been formally advised that this chainsawing of rare old growth forest is an offence committed under the section 46(1) of the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004. The action is also a breach of Code of Forest Practices (CFP).

VicForests Chairman, Warren Hodgson, Board members Monica Gould, Jim Houghton, Fiona McNabb, Bob Smith, Susan Walpole, and Chief Executive Officer David Pollard should all be sacked forthwith. VicForests token 'vision' 'purpose' and 'values' which profess motherhood notions of 'sustainable', 'environmentally responsible' and 'ethical' are but Mugabean. This 500 year old tree epitomises the reality of Brumby's 'Sustainability Charter for State forests.

Botanist Steve Mueck has worked for the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment and is now a consultant in the private sector. He says radiocarbon dating of eucalypts is unusual and the result in this case is significant.

"Current forest managements practices are looking at harvesting on rotation times in the vicinity of 80 to 120 years with the perception that that's a particularly long period of time," he said.

"Now it is, I suppose, in the context of a human lifetime, but it is a very, very short period of time in comparison to the age in which many of the components that live in these forests can in fact get to in a natural system."

Back in the 1860s timber workers and naturalists emerged from the forests with stories of massive trees towering to immense heights and as wide as houses. Government botanist Ferdinand von Mueller recounted the existence of a tree as high as the Egyptian Pyramids at 480 ft (144m) and another fallen tree in the Dandenong Ranges over 400 ft (120m). A giant was sighted in the Otways with a girth of 64 ft (19m).

VicForests senseless decapitation of one of the last Victorian giants is a harbinger of extinction to Victoria's old growth forests. It's like grabbing an old ANZAC from the march past and slitting his throat.