biodiversity

Proposed revisions to the Code of Practice for Forestry in Victoria Australia could adversely impact Victoria's threatened species. As many candobetter.net readers know, the Victorian Auditor General found last year that Victoria has utterly failed in its objectives under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1986) to measure and protect unique species from threat and endangerment. These changes also follow Environment East Gippsland's historic win in court against VicForests last year, where EEG sought protection under this Act for endangered species. With these changes, loggers could seek exemptions from state environment laws protecting endangered species. Victorians (and people all over the world) need to be aware of these proposed changes and to make comments. You can make a submission via this article

Main Points

According to comments reported in the Age, 3 November 2011:

The Secretary of the Department of Sustainability and Environment would be able to exempt a logging project from the requirements of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, which protects the state's endangered and threatened species.

"The proposed changes follow a landmark ruling in the Supreme Court last year banning VicForests from logging old-growth forest at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland, after an endangered long-footed potoroo was filmed in an area to be felled."

"The secretary will consider, among other things, the numbers required to maintain a viable population of a listed species in the area to be logged, and the amount of habitat near the proposed coupe already protected in national parks."

''The objective of the variations is to achieve a better balance between the protection of threatened species and sustainable timber production from public native forests.'' Source: Tom Arup, "New state law in the pipeline to aid loggers."

How to make a submission and how to get more information on-line

The Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007 (the Code) is a key regulatory instrument that applies to commercial timber production in both public and private native forests and plantations in Victoria. It is a statutory document prepared under Part 5 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987. Compliance is required under the Sustainable Forest (Timber) Act 2004 and via its incorporation into the Victoria Planning Provisions.

The purpose of the Code is to ensure that commercial timber growing and timber harvesting operations are carried out on both public land and private land in such a way that:

Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007

[PDF File - 2.1 MB]

Proposed variations to the Code of Practice for timber production (October 2011)

Members of the public are invited to provide comment on a number of proposed variations to the Code of Practice for timber production to improve certainty of timber supply to the native forest timber industry, while balancing the needs of the environment.

Document explaining the proposed variations

The following document outlines the proposed variations to the Code of Practice for timber production.

Proposed variation to the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007

[PDF File - 162.3 KB]
Proposed variation to the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007

[MS Word Document - 60.0 KB]

If you have problems downloading this document, please contact the Customer Service Centre on 136 186 for assistance.

Summary

The proposed variations change the wording in relation to the application of Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statements. This aims to introduce more flexibility and allow further consideration of the importance of Victoria’s national parks and conservation reserves in the protection of threatened species.

The variations will improve the focus of conservation for threatened flora and fauna species to be applied at landscape level, and allow for a reduced focus at the individual animal or plant level.

Factors needing to be considered by the Secretary to the Department of Sustainability and Environment in determining the application of a Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement are also being considered for inclusion in the Code.

Submission of comments

Anyone interested in making a submission on the proposed variations should provide their comments to DSE in writing by:

Mail:

Review of the Code of Practice for Timber Production
Forests and Parks Division
Department of Sustainability and Environment
PO Box 500
East Melbourne, VIC, 3002

Email:
[email protected]

Closing date: submissions must be provided by Wednesday 1 February 2012. Submissions received after this time may not be able to be considered.

Compliance with the Code of Practice

The department ensures that all timber harvesting operations are undertaken in compliance with relevant legislation and with the Code of Practice. Find out more about timber harvesting compliance.

Related Links

The Code refers to various laws and policies that may be subject to change. Links to state policies and other information relevant to the Code are provided below.

• Management Procedures for Timber Harvesting, Roading and Regeneration of Victoria's State Forests 2009 - Provides detailed prescriptions for forest timber harvesting operations, road construction operations, significant road improvement operations, site rehabilitation, forest regeneration and associated administrative processes.
• Native Forest Silviculture Guideline series - Provide information and recommendations on the best available practice for basic silvicultural operations carried out in Victoria's native State forests, that may be applicable to other native forest areas.
• Timber Production in the Rural Zone - Provides guidance to planning authorities about the preparation of a schedule to the Rural Zone as it relates to timber production.
• www.legislation.vic.gov.au - Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents.
• Safety in Forest Operations (Harvesting and Haulage) Industry Standard (July 2007) - Provides practical advice about working safely in Victorian forests.

The Honourable Ryan Smith MP, Minister for the Environment, has confirmed that he will upgrade the status of the Frankston Reservoir to a Nature Conservation Reserve. A delegation, including the Member for Frankston Geoff Shaw MP, met with the Minister in March to discuss the many issues surrounding the future of this significant bushland. The extraordinary quality of this remnant wilderness comes from the fact that there has been no public access for 90 years. Full protection of this reserve will protect the fauna and flora, and guard the “sanctuary” and “solitude” experience of this unique natural heritage for Frankston residents and all Victorians.

Designation as a Nature Conservation Reserve ensures that the protection and enhancement of the flora and fauna of Frankston Reservoir is the primary focus for the future management of this area. The change in classification to Nature Conservation Reserve will require an act of parliament to amend the Crown Land Reserves Act and it is anticipated that this will take place later this year.

The upgrade in the designation seizes this unique opportunity to fully protect the very last area of highly significant bayside vegetation and fauna that lies between Portsea and the city of Melbourne. Moreover, for a society increasingly beset by the nature deficit syndrome, it also offers an exceptional opportunity for people to connect directly with the landscape and fauna that is as the first settlers saw it.

The Frankston Reservoir site supports nationally, state and regionally significant flora and fauna species, plant communities and fauna habitats, including 6 ecological vegetation classes (EVC’s) of State significance. The most extensive of these EVC’s is the endangered Grassy Woodland, which is one of the most species rich ecosystems in the temperate world and is particularly rich in native grasses, orchids and lilies. 215 indigenous flora species are recorded at the 90 hectare site and over 100 fauna species including the nationally threatened Growling Grass Frog and state significant Musk Duck. Koalas, sugar gliders and echidnas also continue to enjoy the habitat of the Frankston Reservoir.

The extraordinary high quality of this remnant wilderness can be attributed to the fact that there has been no public access for 90 years while it was under the control of the water authorities. The full protection of this reserve will not only protect the fauna and flora, but it will also guard the “sanctuary” and “solitude” experience that this unique piece of our natural heritage can offer, not just Frankston residents, but all Victorians.

Approval to rezone the rural land opposite Serendip Sanctuary, Lara, near Geelong, sets a dangerous precedent for open slather development that places the wildlife protected there at risk and flies in the face of democracy. The Sanctuary is internationally recognised for successfully breeding captive species such as Brolga, Musk and Freckled Duck and now the Eastern Barred Bandicoot, which is on the brink of extinction. Serendip forms an important wildlife corridor between the You Yangs Regional Park and Brisbane National Park through agricultural land and the sprawl of Greater Melbourne as it spreads to meet the regional city of Geelong.

Why do Victorians and other Australians have to keep fighting over and over again to protect their rights from the very people who are supposed to be looking after their rights?

The new Liberal Government in Victoria needs to abandon Amendment C73 which was approved by City of Greater Geelong Councillors on 12 April 2011. Approval of C73 will allow rezoning of rural residential land to Residential 1. This retrograde step will literally pave the way for 380+ high density houses.

Residents have been opposing this application for 8 years!

What more do they need to do in a democracy?

Serendip Sanctuary under threat

Approval to rezone the rural land opposite Serendip Sanctuary crosses a line which should not be crossed and which the electorate does not want. To satisfy narrow ambitions to profit from unwanted development, wildlife at risk of extinction will be placed at greater risk.

Serendip Sanctuary is internationally recognised for successfully breeding captive species such as Brolga, Musk and Freckled Duck and now the Eastern Barred Bandicoot which is on the brink of Extinction. The 225 hectares that make it up were purchased and put aside by the Victoria State Government in 1959 for the purposes of wildlife research and the captive management and breeding of species threatened in Victoria. The sanctuary contains many different types of wetland and is home to many plant species as well, such as River Red Gums, tall spikerush, and tussock grass.

How can a supposedly expert and independent panel ignore the regional and international importance of this reserve?

Koalas, kangaroos, wallabies, brolgas, rare native geese...

Numerous nomadic wildlife, including Cape Barren geese, Magpie Geese and Eastern Grey kangaroos breed there and spill over on to the rural land surrounding the Sanctuary, which is only 2 km from You Yangs Regional Park. Serendip Sanctuary thus represents a very important wildlife corridor in an agricultural and small township area, which greater Melbourne is approaching in a pincer movement as it threatens to connect with the regional city of Geelong. The Serendip corridor ultimately leads, via the You Yangs Regional Park to the Brisbane Ranges National Park, which is a haven for koalas, which are daily losing their habitat to the unprecedented amount of development in Victoria and other states.

Serendip Sanctuary is just 45 minutes to the west of Melbourne but visitors will find that they are immediately amongst wild kangaroos and native birds, such as the animated honeyeaters and screeching cockatoos. The lake is the home of crowds of waterbirds. These waterbirds include the magnificent brolgas, celebrated in Aboriginal dance, now rarely seen by Australians.

These precious areas of nature on which our wildlife depend and which Australians and international tourists love will be inexcusably stressed if high density housing goes ahead opposite the Sanctuary, with the intensification of human activity and increase presence of cats, dogs and foxes which accompanies urbanization.

87% of Lara residents oppose this rural to urban rezoning.

Over 3000 residents or 87% of Lara’s enrolled voters have gone on record with submissions or petition signatures which were presented to the Legislative Assembly in November 2009 opposing the C73 Caddys Road Amendment. This level of public opposition is unprecedented in City of Greater Geelong Council history. The voice of the people was ignored by the Brumby Government.

"Independent Panel" unable to recognise importance of Serendip Sanctuary

Serendip Sanctuary and its environmental significance to Geelong and Victoria has been overlooked.

An Independent Panel undervalued the vast majority of serious environmental, safety and community issues that will result from C73 being approved.

As well as the blight on the environment that more development will cause, Lara also lacks infrastructure for additional population. Its schools are already overcrowded and there is a well documented history of fire and flood risk.

Much more careful planning with an emphasis on pulling back, less (development) is more, and quality living over quantity, is required for us all by Local and State Government. To the west of Lara there is already a huge area zoned for future development in Lara. There is thus no reasonable excuse to allow this new development to go ahead opposite the sanctuary.

Australians have a right to demand protection for their natural assets and to ensure peaceful co-existence with our wildlife.

Please help to protect Serendip Sanctuary and to protect Lara from inappropriate development by writing to the new Minister for Planning, Mathew Guy, and asking him to abandon the C37 Amendment which is the administrative culprit in the approaching man-made disaster.

Matthew Guy
Minister for Planning
State Parliament of Victoria
Level 7
1 Spring Street
MELBOURNE.V.3000

Email: matthew.guy[at]parliament.vic.gov.au

I was moved to investigate further when on April 5th candobetter.net received an anonymous comment, entitled, "Koala left clinging to a tree after land clearing." A link to a photograph of a koala clinging to a tree in a recently cleared paddock showed that someone had actually managed to get photo-evidence of the sickening process of koala extinction - for unwanted development - which goes on under our noses with the blessing of the Queensland Government.[1]

Development in Australia is plain scary!

The photographed koala is just one of the many disappearing (starved, run over, mauled, exposed) koalas on the Queensland Goldcoast, where greedy developments are, ironically, absurdly, destroying the beauty and space they advertise in their brochures. There are no effective laws to stop them in Australia. What is more, the State government in Queensland and the state governments in all the other states of Australia operate like land-companies, making laws to privilege development and ensuring that environmental laws have absolutely no teeth. The justification for such developments is to accommodate population growth, but it is the development lobby that causes the population growth to be politically engineered simply to keep up demand for housing, and to provide an excuse for the intolerable rate of ecological destruction.[2]

As Vivienne Ortega wrote in her admirable article, "Koalas on the edge of survival precipice" on the subject of koala extinction, "There is no way koalas can evolve and adapt fast enough to overcome roads, logging, land clearing, invasive species and pets. The only way koalas could “win” is if they had machine guns to protect them!"

Perron Group

The entity directly backing the development destined for the koala habitat in question is the "Perron Group", which describes itself as "a privately-owned Perth-based Group of Companies owned and controlled by the Chairman, Mr Lloyd Stanley Perron AM." [AM stands for 'Member of the Order of Australia'. Wikipedia describes the Order of Australia as 'an order of chivalry established by Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia on 14 February 1975 "for the purpose of according recognition to Australian citizens and other persons for achievement or for meritorious service"'.]

The Perron group, by its own account, has invested more than $30m in the project which is responsible for the destruction of koalas' homes in an area where the species is severely threatened in a world already over-run with people and suburbs.

The group describes its project as "a world class example of a sustainable master planned community for future generations of Australians."

The intention is to build 3,500 houses on this precious native habitat with a long history of being protected and of continuing community support for its protection.

"Master Plan"

Let us pause for a moment and consider what the notion of a 'master-planned' 'community' must mean to the citizens in the area who may have believed they had self-government, where members of the elected council, such as Councillor Ted Shepherd, have been trying to fight for their rights and for koala and other species habitat since this development application was first proposed. Ironically millionaire Bob Anthes, in a land where money almost always means destruction of wildlife and democracy, had kept this land safe for nature up to his death in 2004. Then, according to Melinda Marshall's article, "Council bushwhacked," of March 22, 2010, a mining magnate, Ross Atkins, took over the 'management' of deceased Bob Anthes' property. Under his management the trees on the property, still zoned as agricultural, were being cut down and milled in their hundreds. What a sad thing!

Balance? What balance? Bank balance?

Mr Alston was quoted on 14 December excusing his actions by saying, "You have to have a balance of natural and human habitat," he said.

What sort of 'balance' is extinction? As Vivienne Ortega writes in "Koalas on the edge of the survival precipice,"...., "The only way koalas could “win” is if they had machine guns to protect them!"

If you want to stand up for the koalas, you can leave comments here for the Perron Group re its "Pacific View Estate." There are a few already, to the effect that just because it's 'legal' that doesn't make it alright. And there is a sad little argument to the effect of, "We cut the trees down for rural management, but we agree with you that farming isn't a good idea so close to urban development, that's why we are putting more houses there." (!)

Pacific View Estate and the Perron Group

The Perron Group consists of many 'players'. CRA, DPZ Pacific, Urban Planning Services, Ocean Park Consulting, James Warren & Associates, LVO Architecture, John Wood Consultancy Services, Bitzios Consulting, Cardno, Steensen Varming and Acoustic Logic Consultancy. On the Pacific View Estate site it says, "Pacific View Estate, a new relationship between natural and human habitats."

This description would also suit TEPCO's business in providing electricity to Japan.

God Squad vs Koalas

CRA claims (on the Pacific View Estate site) to 'work closely' with Mission Australia.

Mission Australia describes itself as having a "founding purpose inspired by Jesus Christ," and that, " Mission Australia exists to meet human need and to spread the knowledge of the love of God'. Furthermore it claims that its "vision" is "to see a fairer Australia by enabling people in need to find pathways to a better life'".

Well, maybe with 'visions' you don't need to look at reality.

Does Mission Australia really think that Jesus would endorse the desecration of the natural world, the extinction of species, the razing of forests, and the abrogation of community self-government through commercially "master-planned" communities dominated by transnational corporations?

Talk about building temples for money-changers! I won't be making a donation to Mission Australia if this is what it supports.

Other organisations involved in this Pacific .... Project.

DPZ Pacific says that its "mission" is "to design and build communities in harmony with the environment in the world’s most dynamic regions for growth." It's a bizarre mix of words, isn't it? I guess you could take it to mean that DPZ Pacific considers this region not for its biodiversity, but for its population growth trends. Thus, to be in harmony with marketed demographic projections, there is nothing wrong with paving over the trees, starving out the koalas and stuffing up local self-government. What is this? Leggoworld? Are the people and their elected representatives just some kind of transformer toys there to animate a sandpit?

DPZ Pacific: "DBIDBI Design," not exactly what you would want for a natural environment, this architectural firm, going by the photos on its website.

Urban Planning Services - UPS ... More planners.

Ocean Park Consulting: "Ocean Park Consulting Pty Limited is a Gold Coast based company that provides to government agencies and private enterprise organisations delivery management, approvals engineering, environmental planning and integrated infrastructure planning services.

Ocean Park Consulting's extensive professional experience in major land development and infrastructure projects facilitates early recognition of potential project constraints and opportunities and allows for development of effective management strategies to ensure positive project outcomes, to strive to achieve a balance between the needs of the natural environment and the human environment. "

That word, "balance" again, in such an unbalanced project of machines against nature.

James Warren & Associates is described on the site as "a specialist environmental consulting company which has been operating since 1987." It is claimed that "JWA have completed a detailed assessment of the Ecological Values of the Pacific View Estate site" and that the company has "identified the potential impacts of the proposed development on these values and have recommended various mitigation measures" and that "in consultation with the team of experts, JWA have assisted to design a concept plan that provides for the conservation of the ecologically significant values occurring on site."

Wonder what they had to say about the koalas and chopping down all the trees? Speak up, James Warren and Associates! Are you pleased or did they ignore what you recommended?

(Then again, how can anyone in this group speak up? Their livings depend on this process continuing. So someone else has to stop it.)

LVO’ Architecture ... More builders...

John Wood Consultancy Services was established in December 2000, as the Principal Recreation and Environmental Planner with EDAW (Australia) Pty Ltd. On JWC's site there is a notice which states that the operator is "a current member of the Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation" and explains that all such members "have agreed to abide by QORF's Code of Ethics." If you go to the site that lists those ethics, which are quite admirable. It is therefore surprising to see that one of their members should be associated with a project which is now linked to destruction of koala habitat and the razing of trees on a property once known for its conservation values, now transformed into a corporate vs community battleground.

Bitzios Consulting is an Australian traffic engineering and transport planning consultancy that operates on an international scale.

Cardno: Grogan Richards Consulting Engineers has merged with transnationals Cardno, an "infrastructure services firm" which, like others on the Pacific View Estate, professes to be creating "better communities across the globe". Its "client base includes builders, developers, shopping centre owners and managers, local government, government departments, architects, manufacturers, retailers, town planners and the legal profession."

Steensen Varming - construction, engineering, incorporating "environmentally responsible features."

Acoustic Logic Consultancy - more engineering and construction of a specialised nature. "With the implementation of this wealth of knowledge and experience, ALC and the Pacific View Farm have endeavoured to ensure that this project will not have detrimental acoustic impact on the future and existing residents of Worongary."

With such a corporate army of spin-doctors and built-environmentalists what hope do koalas or democracy have? In fact the koala might well stand for local democracy because both democracy and koalas are doomed in this commercial transnational environment, with its practitioners determined to ram their steel constructions down the locals' throats with the saccharine-sugar coating of a few promised 'jobs' which may well go to imported labour.

Oh what evil in Australia is done in the name of "jobs", where once there was land and food to spare and the possibility of a just society.

Out of control

The Gold Coast Council administers a once-magnificent part of Australia and oversees a great deal of callous destruction and environmental degradation in the name of continuous population growth - which most people explicitly reject in polls.

The growth is driven by investors who only see the returns on their balance-sheets and apparently lack the wit to examine the greater costs - to social capital and local, national and global biodiversity. This tragic process which currently entraps Australia was magnified to greater heights than ever before in the mid-1990s, as the global internet took off and as the last feeble obstacles to foreign purchase and investment of Australian real-estate were removed. Policies were put in place to turbo charge the financial turnover on an international scale, leading to the so-called global financial crisis. But we are dealing with addicts here, so the crisis machine was cranked up again with public money.

The homes will be bought by outsiders mostly, with no knowledge, loyalty or emotional investment in the community - rather like the developers, one suspects.

NOTES

[1] http://candobetter.net/node/2415#comment-6239

[2] I recently talked with a lawyer who had just graduated from a post-grad course in Environmental Law. I asked her if there was anything in it. "Nothing," she said. "Absolutely nothing. It's completely shocking!" She added, "I took the course to see if my first impression was really true, that the environmental laws in Australia didn't work. And it was true! We have no environmental law!"

Sources:
Melinda Marshall, "Council bushwacked," March 22nd, 2010.

Lucy Ardern, "Koala sighting incites conservation debate," Gold Coast News, April 5th, 2011

Upon waking this morning, the first of January, I expect the media to lead off with what has become a tiresome ritual. Declaring the "winner" of the First-Baby-Of-The-Year Derby. Or should it be called "The Race To Extinction Derby"? Is there anything more symbolic of our collective stupidity and denial as celebrating the addition of the earliest born human being to a species that has rocketed to nearly 7 billion? I think it is timely then to reprise something I wrote a year and a half ago. I have not flinched in my fealty to these sentiments. It is something, which, if it appeared in the local community magazine, would ensure my lynching. That it would inspire such a reaction is proof, I think, of its veracity.

This morning I noticed that a particularly beautiful flower had erupted in unison across the bank on my land facing the ocean. Its brilliant white blossom reflected the piercing morning sun which confronted it from the east. And yet this resplendent flower, and the plant it issues from, is not treated with the dignity or praise that its beauty might warrant. In fact, it is not even regarded as a flower, but a pernicious and troublesome “weed” whose appetite for lebensraum apparently knows no limit. It advances like a blitzkrieg, enveloping all foliage in its path, and before you know it, it crosses the boundary of designated wild growth into the pampered territory of tended plants and flowers, wrapping its invidious stems around them like a python, choking them to death. Soon its numbers overwhelm the garden, and other flowers of no greater splendour are mourned as victims.

What is a weed? What is a flower?

What criteria determines its categorization as a “weed” while those it displaces are labelled as “flowers”? It is the simple fact that they threaten to be ubiquitous at the expense of plants who are in danger of extinction in the teeth of their relentless onslaught. Weeds are weeds because there are too many to be valued. Flowers are flowers because their fragility requires consistent attendance, while weeds enjoy a flourishing presence despite neglect and a competitive advantage.

If there were a billion roses and but a dozen weeds of the kind I mentioned, it would be more likely that the rose would be designated as the weed rather than the plant with the brilliant white flowers.

Far too many rogue apes

There are currently 2.2 billion children in the world, and there numbers grow like yeast in a vat. According to ecologist Richard Cincotta, “There are more human babies born each day ---about 380,000---than there are individuals left in all the great ape species combined, including gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangatuns like this one.” 380,000 or 200,000 per day---the exact figure is not material. What is relevant is that some 78-80 million rogue primates----homo sapiens---are added annually, 214,000 per day and 152 per minute, to a human population already close to 7 billion in number. And it is that growing number which is killing off some 100 non-human species a day, upon which even these arrogant and intelligent apes ultimately depend upon for their survival. For well over 90% of our existence, there were never more than 5-10 million human beings on the entire planet. As hunter-gatherers we lived sustainably, and then we made a 10,000 year mistake----we practiced cultivation agriculture—and our numbers exploded. We mined the soils to exhaustion, then discovered fossil fuels to temporarily revive them. The next die-off will be unimaginable in scope if we do not reign in our numbers.

It has been argued that we are a species that is so very different than the rest. Spiritual beings whose children are of such divine vintage that each and every one of them is God’s Precious Gift. After all, what other species could paint the Mona Lisa, write Hamlet, build the Taj Mahal or design an MIR machine? And among the added billions there could be another Einstein or Picasso. True. But we are also a species that built Hydrogen bombs and chemical weapons, laid waste to rain forests and killed coral reefs. And for every Einstein or Picasso there are thousands who deploy their genius to exploitation and ruin. We are programmed to exploit a habitat beyond repair, then expand and move on to despoil more that have not yet been ravaged, rarely content to live within limits.

Our genius is a double-edged sword

I would therefore submit that we are the weeds, and our children are like the white “Morning Glory” blossoms that invade my garden. Beautiful---but greedy, voracious and epidemic. Their collective value is inversely proportional to their number. “The more people there are, the less one person matters.” (Bill Moyers). I have no regard for their “right” to exist in the context of the threat they now pose to other life forms and therefore to humanity itself. Nature does not exist for humankind. Man is not, as Democritus believed, “the measure of all things”. We are game wardens who blew our assignment. Too incompetent and ignorant to manage complex systems that defy our understanding. And too reckless and avaricious to live within the limits of our environment and with little ability to acknowledge those boundaries. Children have our “bad seed”. They are congenitally flawed by the same predispositions that we were born with. The fault lies not with the stars, or with a given political or economic arrangement. It lies within our brains. Like the dinosaurs, we have design limits. Too much armour, not enough intelligence. We are rigged for denial and like a super-tanker with a myopic captain, we need to take evasive actions to avoid dangers that loom far ahead before we are upon them, but we are unable to see them. And some, most especially the captains of mainstream environmental organizations, are paid by corporate donations not to see them.

Environmentalists in denial

One of the greatest mysteries that might confound those who might autopsy our civilization is how environmentalists of the 21st century could accuse so many of being in denial of anthropogenic global warming, but remain in almost total denial of human overpopulation. They might ask how the Canadian environmental establishment could believe that we could add the equivalent of another Metro Toronto to our population each decade without it having profoundly negative ecological consequences, or that their American counterparts could think that the United States could grow its population by 30 million people every decade without causing farmland and species loss, critically depleted aquifers or more green house gas emissions.

Why must the world need your genes? Why not adopt?

Obviously I am not vested with the maternal (or paternal) instinct. I fail to understand why people feel the need to replicate themselves, or why they have to have a child with the same pair of eyes or ears as they have, or why they believe that the world is in critical need of their genes. Neither do I understand why they would not instead choose to adopt one of the 36,000 children in Canada without parents who are waiting for a loving home. Cannot one love an adopted child as much as one genetically related?

Who is misanthropic?

I do not nor could not hate children anymore than I would contrive to hate tropical fish or penguins. Each child is beautiful in his or her own way, but we do not need another 380,000 beautiful children every day, especially when each must then share a small slice of a non-renewable resource pie that is set to contract dramatically. I merely have the cold reptilian attitude of a surgeon whose patient has an infected leg that must be amputated to prevent gangrene from overtaking his body and killing him. The leg must be removed forthwith by the least inhumane of effective measures. This is not the surgery performed by someone who hates the patient but on the contrary, it would be action of someone who cares for the patient’s life. Those who advocate rapid population decline do not hate people. In fact, the most authentically misanthropic approach would be to celebrate human life to the extent of allowing it to continue unchecked to displace all other vital life forms, and confuse the “quantity of life” with the quality of life.

We need pruning

“Pro-life” then is actually “pro-death”, and in this light Dr. Henry Morgenthaler, the pioneer abortionist, remains the greatest Canadian environmentalist to ever live. For if the truth be known, we are the gangrene. The weed that is genetically fated to spread without inhibition. If we do not perform emergency surgery soon, nature will most assuredly do so---and without anesthetic. The results will not necessarily be optimal.

Tim Murray,
July 29/09

The Australian land tax system creates hot treeless slums. In Queensland, for instance, the Brisbane City Council charges landowners according to the assessed market value of their land. If the Council land-zoning changes to allow medium or high density housing on land previously zoned only for detached homes, then the commercial value of that land goes up as each block will then be able to hold several dwellings instead of one. Although living conditions then become cramped and the quality of life for residents of higher density declines in comparison with that of residents of detached single dwellings, the total financial value of the medium density dwellings inevitably exceeds that of a single residence on the same land.

Rich aspire now to what working class had 40 years ago

The houses and gardens in this gentrified, expensive area of Brisbane, very close to the CBD, used to belong to working class families, who grew vegetables in their back yards and whose children played in the rainforest in the valley between the houses. Those were the 'bad' old days. Nowadays, of course, ordinary people cannot hope to purchase in this area, and many will never own a home, let alone a home with a garden and a rainforest out back, 20 minutes walk from the Brisbane GPO.

Greed or necessity

But apparently even the current residents of this last green valley in inner Brisbane are going to lose the rainforest out back too, because the opportunity to make a quid by developing every square inch causes neighbours to cave in to greed, or necessity, one by one. As the land values go up, so do rates. And down come the trees...

Holding out

One man has held out now since the late sixties to the three blocks of land adjacent to a fourth with the house where he raised his children, simply because, as an architect, he can see that the forest is of more intrinsic value than the cash-value of the land. He can no longer afford to pay the rates, however, and so is faced with the option of going into debt to build on the property or going into debt to keep the property for nature.

Land-taxes and overpopulation doom nature and raise costs

Has government-engineered population growth in Brisbane made every square inch of this area too expensive to leave unpaved or is there some way out?

In June 2010, it was "reported" on ninesn.com that Brisbane home owners were to be slugged with a 5.04% increase in their council rates (based upon the the fact that the increase would drive up the rates on average by $80 (presumably per year)).

This hike shows how ordinary Brisbane home-owners and mortgagees are being made to pay the price of the mismanagement of our economy by governments at the Federal state and local, particularly due the encouragement of population growth by those governments.

Land-tax system creates slums

The Brisbane City Council charges landowners according to the assessed market value of their land. If the Council land-zoning changes to allow medium or high density housing on land previously zoned only for detached homes, then the commercial value of that land goes up as each block will then be able to hold several dwellings instead of one. Although living conditions then become cramped and the quality of life for residents of higher density declines in comparison with that of residents of detached single dwellings, the total financial value of the medium density dwellings inevitably exceeds that of a single residence on the same land.

People don't like what is happening

In spite of the profits that can be made, many residents choose to forego such profits and continue to live in single detached dwellings. They may do so in order to preserve the suburban lifestyle to which they have become accustomed and to avoid the disruption to their own lives entailed in selling their own residence and moving further away from the centre of the city, work and amenities in order to find a house similar to the one they have sold.

What can be lost

The google-earth map (at least five years old, judging by the current landscape features not shown) of the suburb near the centre of Brisbane (alluded to at the beginning of this article) shows what else can be lost by the rezoning of inner city suburbs. In this photo is a precious patch of suburban rainforest, a thing of utmost rarity in Brisbane, which is currently being gnawed away by subdivision. As mentioned in the introduction, in the past, much of the rainforest at the back of these homes was an effective commons in which local children played. The rainforest also continues to perform a number of valuable ecological services, and to provide shelter and food for wildlife. Without this patch of forest, and other fragments, Brisbane would be a far less pleasant place to live.

Removal of trees causes flooding

Rain, which falls on suburban rainforest, is retained in the soils, bushes and trees. Rain which which falls on rooftops, driveways, concrete footpaths, roadways and mowed lawns, is quickly driven by gravity into lower parts of the city. Towns in which vegetated land has been replaced with housing - particularly high-density housing - are more prone to flooding. A very striking example is the town of Toowoomba, 140 km to the west of Brisbane. over decades, vegetated land on the higher ground surrounding Toowoomba's centre has been cleared and covered with housing. Now all but the lightest of showers cause the centre of Toowoomba to become flooded.

Removal of trees causes climate warming

Those sought-after timber Brisbaner houses with their ornate wooden trimmings and lattice-work verandahs now stand where vast forests once stood. People often don't realise that the wood for those houses came from the forests they replaced. As more and more of Brisbane has been changed from living green into a concrete jungle, it's local climate has become hotter and less pleasant. The vegetation in the photo almost certainly keeps the locals cooler and Brisbane as a whole more healthy. Forested suburban settings are immensely desirable and raise the value of the housing nearby as well as benefiting the wider environment.

Environmentally responsible penalised

Yet landowners who try to preserve vegetation, including rainforest, on their land have been penalised, rather than being rewarded for the service their decision provide to Brisbane. The City Council forces them to pay rates on assessed land values that those environmentally sensitive landholders could only possibly gain from if they were to choose to destroy the vegetation on their land with subdivision and to profit

from medium density housing construction.

The google-earth map photo is about five years old. A considerable amount of urban rainforest has been lost in that time as a result of medium density housing construction. Vegetation known to have been lost has been indicated by red lines on the map. In addition, the rainforest has been encroached upon by extensions of housing, often to construct sub-units down the valley.

If some residents are willing to profit from the destruction of their natural environment, at least those who won't should not be penalised for doing so. Rather than hitting environmentally generous landowners with rate increases, the City Council should discount their rates (and do so retrospectively) for the environmental services they have protected on their land which have benefited the other residents of Brisbane and the native possums, flying foxes, and many beautiful birds, which depend on such fragments of rainforest.

Hobson's choice?

I know personally that the landowner with the three forested unbuilt blocks now sees little choice but to sell his land because the rates are so high. If he reluctantly goes ahead and the remnant rainforest is destroyed it will be more than a loss of natural beauty for Brisbane residents. Almost certainly the loss of the ecological services will make Brisbane a hotter and uglier. It will certainly not improve it. Those who can afford to will most likely draw on more electrical power to make their homes cool at least on the inside.

NIMBYs needed now

The poorer classes who once lived unpretentiously but well in this very suburb with far more space than people now do, will swelter in miserable high-density subdivisions and in the treeless outer suburbs. Many will certainly not be able to afford the option of air-conditioning because, as human population has increased and the trees have been destroyed, the heat has increased and so has the cost of housing and of power.

This kind of thing is happening all over Australia.

Brisbane and Australia need more NIMBYs.

#frogs" id="frogs">

Appendix: the decline of amphibians in urban Australia

(This brief appendix has been extracted from nimby's comment Frogs on the decline too of 6 Jan 11.)

Dr Andrew Hamer, based at the University of Melbourne, stressing that reptile and frog habitats need be conserved in residential areas by keeping them as natural as possible, even if they are only small areas. "Our research suggests that many reptile and frog species have been negatively affected by urbanization,” says Dr Hamer. With

higher density living

, more concrete drains rather than rivers and creeks, and less back yards and green wedges, our amphibians and reptile have little chance of being protected.

Controversial Tweed Shire Council has a history of making poor environmental decisions that are hugely unpopular with the largely Green-oriented residents. It is the second most complained about council in New South Wales. However in November 2010 the councillors voted for the worst possible blunder which will be recorded as a major crime against Nature.

Byrrill Creek, NSW

In October 2010 the residents in Tweed Shire did something that had never been done before in the history of World Rally Championships – they succeeded in ridding Tweed and neighbouring Kyogle Shire of the rally. There were many reason for this, not the least of which was the threat to already threatened and endangered species living en route.

One of the routes, pristine and idyllic Byrrill Creek - home to platypus, diminishing koalas and 45 threatened and endangered fauna, 26 threatened and endangered flora and adjacent to two World Heritage National Parks – had such fierce opposition from locals that the race had to be stopped after only 3 cars went through. News travelled as far as New York Times that rocks had been thrown at the cars – which was 6 months later denied by local police.

Short Lived Euphoria

The residents only had a few weeks to bask in the glory of success when a far worse environmental travesty was foisted on them by the local council – the building of a 36,000 ML dam in Byrrill Creek, against advice of their staff planners and the community working group. Such a dam would flood 400 hectares of this high conservation value, riparian area.

Sustainable water recommendations such as mandatory water tanks for new houses, dual reticulation, stormwater harvesting, grey-water recycling, wise water use were not even considered as an option.

The raising of Clarrie Hall dam nearby, recommended as the #1 option by council staff and the CWG, was rejected in favour of building a controversial dam at Byrrill Creek. The councillors voting in favour of Byrrill Creek dam must have influential friends living at Clarrie Hall dam is all I can say because that would be by far the cheaper, simpler and less controversial option.

While the shire already has almost enough water to support the existing population until 2036, the given reason for the building of a new dam is the addition of two new mega housing developments on the coast which would double the population effectively. It would seem sensible for the new housing developments to meet their own water needs with sustainable water management such as in the U.K. and Singapore.

(Cr Skinner, Cr Polglase and Cr Youngblutt)On November 1st, Mayor Kevin ‘Green’ Skinner (who declared on his election his commitment to 'preserving this lovely pristine environment'(see http://www.tweednews.com.au/story/2010/09/21/skinner-tweeds-new-mayor/ ) used his casting vote to push the motion for a dam through, contrary to convention to vote with staff recommendations. The ‘Three Stooges’ pro-development councillors who voted for the dam, also dogged a motion for an independent review of water demand management for the shire.

Councillor van Lieshout was unable to vote due to her husband's ownership of land that would be part of the area at Mebbin that would be inundated. The other three councillors Cr Milne, Cr Holdom and Cr Longland lodged a recission motion and the following week an extraordinary meeting was held which which resulted in the same outcome - 3-3 tied with the Mayor once again using his casting vote to push the dam through in spite of receiving hundreds of requests from residents not to. The council also received letters from 5 District Ratepayers Associations representing 70% of the shire's population. They all strongly condemned the dam proposal.

When these three councillors, who only received 25% of the vote at the council elections in 2008, use their power to force a decision that is unwanted by the majority of the residents and ratepayers, it makes you wonder what is their motivation.

Even the General Manager (who was on the Board of the Repco Rally) is not in favour of a dam at Byrrill Creek. Nor is Max Boyd (former Administrator) and Nationals MP for Tweed Geoff Provest. They realise that the NSW Weirs policy is opposed to new dams. The Federal EPBC Act stopped the Traveston Dam on Mary River Qld due to its nationally endangered species but there are more federally threatened and endangered species at Byrrill Creek. Forging ahead for a dam is fraught with legal difficulties and may well be rejected by the government after many years and much money wasted. Who pays for all the costs involved in planning the dam, legal costs, amounting to millions of dollars? Why ratepayers of course! Not the Three Stooges, that’s for sure.

If they were wise they would raise Clarrie Hall dam (which needs repairs anyway) to ensure the shire’s water needs are met by 2036. However, while the raising of Clarrie Hall dam is less environmentally destructive, nevertheless it will negatively impact on the threatened species there. By far the best option is sustainable water options.

Environmental Reasons to Oppose a Dam

1. It threatens two adjacent World Heritage areas. Byrrill Creek is an identified and important wildlife corridor between three National Parks, two of which are World Heritage listed (Border Ranges NP and Mount Warning NP) and the third (Mebbin NP) is currently under consideration for inclusion of World Heritage status. Since 11 hectares of Mebbin NP would be inundated, that part of Mebbin NP would not be eligible for WH status.

Byrrill Creek is geologically part of the inner ring dyke system of the extinct volcanic complex of Mt Warning. This shield volcano is one of the best preserved in the world.

2. Byrrill Creek and surrounding National Parks provides habitat for a high level of flora and fauna, threatened, vulnerable or endangered within the TSC (State) and EPBC (Federal) listings. An assessment of priority fauna species identified 42 priority flora species, 37 priority fauna species and 6 amphibians, 7 reptiles, 13 birds and 11 mammals.

According to Dr S. Phillips of Biolink Ecological Consultants, there are 45 threatened fauna species in a 5km radius of Byrrill Creek and 26 threatened flora, some of which are found nowhere else in the world, including:

Some of the species impacted by a dam at Byrrill Creek

Byrrill Creek Koala, Brush Tailed Phascogale, Eastern Pygmy Possum, Spotted Tailed Quoll, Squirrel Glider, Red Legged Pademelon, Stephens Banded Snake, Byrrill Creek Planigale, Yellow Bellied Glider, Large Footed Myotis, Giant Barred Frog, Green Thighed Frog, Pouched Frog, Loveridge’s Frog, Stuttering Frog, Barking Owl, Marbled Frogmouth, Masked Owl, Sooty Owl, Glossy Black Cockatoo, Barred Cuckoo Shrike, Powerful Owl, Red-Tailed Black Cockatoo, Square Tailed Kite, Wompoo Fruit Dove, Albert’s Lyrebird, Black Breasted Buttom Quail, Rose-Crowned Fruit Dove, Rufous Scrub Bird, Bush Hen.

The pouched frog is found only in Tweed shire. This remarkable frog leaves its eggs under leaves, not in the water. When they hatch the hatchlings crawl on the back of the male frog where it has two pouches. It is there that they live till big enough to leave.

Ironically enough, the Albert's Lyrebird is on the Tweed Shire council's crest. In NSW, this species occurs in the Northern Rivers Area only, occurring west to the Acacia Plateau in the Border Ranges and reaching its eastern and southern limits in the coastal range south-west of Ballina. It is found nowhere else in the world. Will they have to change their crest when it becomes locally extinct due to the dam going ahead?

The Giant Barred Frog (mixophyes iterates) is endangered under the EPBC Act. It is one of the largest frogs in Australia. A three month study was conducted on this frog in Mebbin National Park.

According to Dr Steve Phillips of Biolink Ecological Services there are also two endangered ecological communities that would be at risk. There are 15-17 species at risk of local extinction in the lowland rainforest if it were be inundated in the case of a dam built in Mebbin National Park.

3. Under the Border Ranges Biodiversity Management Plan, the Tweed Caldera (of which Byrrill Creek is an important part) is a recognised priority area for biodiversity management. So why is this area even being considered for a dam? It is an area of high conservation value with no less than six ecological assessments classifying Byrrill Creek catchment as a site of the highest conservation value riparian status in the Tweed Shire.

Stressed Rivers Assessment Report 1999 (NSW Land & Water Conservation)
Tweed Riparian Restoration Prioritisation Report 2003 (Ecosure, Burleigh Heads)
Tweed Shire Vegetation Management Strategy 2004
NRCMA Byrrill Creek Riparian Rehabilitation Project 2006
PAS Key Corridor Connections Project 2009 and 2010
A local Byrrill Creek Fauna & Flora Survey by J. Gardner 2009

Currently there has been no complete fauna & flora assessment of the proposed dam site. There needs to be a comprehensive new assessment of the true ecological significance of Byrrill Creek catchment.

If a dam went ahead, irreplaceable rainforest would be flooded at Mebbin NP. Lance Tarvey of NPWS, Murwillumbah, considers these the most valuable in diversity of species and irreplaceable.

4. The Stressed Rivers report DLWC 1999 classed the mid Tweed River as already stressed due to water extraction at Clarrie Hall Dam and it has been identified by NPWS for conservation. Another dam would exacerbate this problem.

Financial Reasons to Oppose a Dam

Over the last three years a total of $546,000 has been allocated in grants to the Byrrill Creek area for restoration, landcare and conservation projects. All of this would have been for nought.

The cost to build a dam at Byrrill Creek would be $67 million compared to $35 million to raise the wall at Clarrie Hall dam.

Furthermore to proceed with a dam when there is a high possibility it will be rejected is wasting millions of ratepayers' money when it didn't need to be. Traveston Dam was rejected on the grounds of endangered species and the Qld government wasted $100 million of taxpayers' money in the process - for nothing.

Dams only have an average lifespan of 50-100 years before they fail. What a waste of time, money and irreplaceable biodiversity for old-school mentality!

Sustainability Issues Ignored

Social and government trends are towards low impact water management and harvesting strategies (stormwater and rainwater harvesting, dual reticulation, greywater use and reduced demand through efficient water use. The Tweed community overwhelmingly called for the latter practices to be enforced and identified a dam at Byrrill Creek as the last of possible options.

Indigenous Sites Under Threat

Mt Warning is a sacred site to the local aboriginal population and contains numerous cultural heritage sites within the Byrrill Creek area. There was a 3-day indigenous study showing 26 registered sites confined to the original aboriginal inhabitants (camp sites etc). In 2009 4 new sites were found. A dam would cut highly significant pathways. These sites are significant and important to the indigenous people living here.

Indigenous leaders chose of the four options the following:
1. borewater
2. pipeline to SE Qld
3. Clarrie Hall dam
4. Byrrill Creek dam

Legal Reasons to Oppose a New Dam

Rainforest like this would be inundated.

A dam at Byrrill Creek is currently prohibited. Section 9, Clause 6, In-River Dams of the Tweed River area Unregulated and Alluvial Draft Water Sharing Plan states that a dam at Byrrill Creek is prohibited because of its high conservation value. Should the council plan to transfer water interstate, this same plan within Part 13, Clause 36 says ‘Interstate transference of water allocations to or from these (Tweed’s) water sources are prohibited.’
Yet Tweed Council submitted amendments to both of these clauses in October 2009 allowing a dam at Byrrill Creek and allowing the transfer of water to and from the adjoining shires of South East Queensland and Rous.

Additionally, inundating areas of Mebbin National Park which are part of the Federal and NSW government and State Forestry North East Forest Agreement (NEFA) would necessitate the same levels of legislation.

There are twelve pieces of legislation that would need to approve this dam and it is highly likely that the Threatened Species Conservation (TSC) Act and the Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 would not approve it due to all the state and federally threatened and endangered species.

The NSW Weirs Policy is for environmentally sustainable development. It gives fifteen reasons why no new dams should be built and has as a goal to halt, reduce and remediate the environmental impacts of dams. Furthermore, it disallows the construction of dams or even augmentation of a dam for the purpose of an increase in town population. It also disallows construction of a dam if it breaks connectivity for species. Both of these apply in the case of Byrrill Creek.

Why Biodiversity Protection is Critical at this Time

* According to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/index.html
“Australia is one of 17 countries described as being ‘megadiverse’. This group of countries has less than 10% of the global surface, but support more than 70% of the biological diversity on earth. These countries represent more than two-thirds of all (known) life forms and the majority of tropical rainforests, coral reefs and other priority systems. The results of the assessment were published in Megadiversity: Earth's biologically wealthiest nations."

* Australia has the most (non-fish) vertebrate species of all the 17 mega-diverse countries.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/index.html

* We only had around 2% of Australia covered in rainforest when we first arrived we now have less than .25% left and in that resides over 60 % of our biodiversity.

* The Australian Government listed the Border Rangers, including the Tweed Caldera, as one of the 15 biodiversity hotspots around Australia. “These hotspots were identified to increase public awareness of the cost effectiveness of strategic and timely action to conserve biodiversity. In hotspot areas, timely intervention may prevent long-term and irreversible loss of their values, and provide high return on our conservation dollar”. (Aust Govt website: Biodiversity Hotspots).

* Of countries containing large endowments of biodiversity, Australia is unique in another very significant way. Of all the countries classified as megadiverse, Australia is one of only two countries in the high income category. This position carries a special responsibility and implies that a high standard of biodiversity protection can be expected in Australia. It also carries with it an opportunity too for world leadership”. (Aust Govt website: State of Environment report 2001)

* The Earth is experiencing the 6th mass extinction event – the 5th was 65 million years ago. The conservation status of Australia's biodiversity reflects the global situation. Close to 50% of all mammal extinctions that occurred globally in the last 200 years were in Australia - http://www.greateasternranges.org.au/nature/wildlife/global-extinction-crisis

* Approximately 13% of all Australia's known vertebrate species are listed in Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as either 'threatened' or 'vulnerable'. The number of terrestrial birds and mammals assessed as extinct, endangered or vulnerable on this list rose by 41% in the last decade.

* Known species extinctions Australia has experienced since non-Indigenous settlement have been primarily in arid/semi-arid climatic areas, however, significant loss of biodiversity has occurred in the forests and woodlands. The extinction of local populations and community assemblages continues with the degradation of ecosystem functionality. This local loss of biodiversity is partly recognised by the species and ecosystems formally regarded by each Australian state as threatened, as distinct from those listed nationally as threatened with global extinction.

* Tweed has the largest number of threatened flora in Australia. 80% of bush land in Tweed has high (or very high) conservation status” (State of the Environment Tweed 2009).

Clearly, this World Class environment deserves world class planning practices.

Conclusion

No wonder we have such a high percentage of biodiversity loss when we have people in power like the three Tweed Shire councillors who voted for this dam. Time for unenlightened councillors to get with the program – this is 2010, the Year of Biodiversity. Why do they think they are not responsible for intelligent governance of the environment for the people and future generations? Perhaps they should review #5 of council’s charter where it says to properly manage environment in a sustainable way?

http://www.savebyrrillcreek.com
http://candobetter.net/node/2857

Freeway proponents' argument for clearing push prior to provision of net gain offsets:
"Their main argument was that granting this injunction would cost them millions of dollars. They did not challenge that the Incorporated Document said the offsets should be in place prior to construction. They did not produce a list of offsets that are being considered." (Gillian Collins)

Ed. The below was written by Gillian Collins. The only editorial changes are the use of subtitles and emphasis by formatting changes. Note that VCAT stands for Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal - an institution where Victorian laws are meant to be administered in a relatively low key and inexpensive way by 'members' who are usually not professionally legally trained.

"At the VCAT Directions hearing yesterday, the Frankston North Community Group, Inc., Pines Protectors, was represented by Felicity Millner of the Environment Defenders Office, and Barristers Julie Davis and Stephen Grant. Julie Davis presented the argument. And I was there.

The LMA, Southern Way, and AbiGroup had a total of 19 lawyers, solicitors, and helpers, including one Queens Council for LMA. Frankston City Council and Mornington Council each had one lawyer there. Neither supported our application, which was very disappointing.

Four against 19 - David and Goliath indeed.

At the hearing in the Administrative Division, Planning and Environment section, we asked for an Interim injunction to prevent AbiGroup from clearing the two remaining sections of the Peninsula Link right-of-way that still contain rare and endangered plant communities - the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve and the Eastlink interchange Herb rich Grassy Wetlands - until the entire application could be heard. That may take up to six months.

Conservationists' Argument

"Our argument was fairly simple - the Incorporated Document in the Frankston and Mornington Planning Schemes that give permission for the project state that net gain offsets will be provided prior to the beginning of construction and works."

Ms Davis presented the evidence based on the documents and Ms Millner and Mr. Grant supported her with additional points. It took about an hour and 15 minutes.

The rest of the 4 hour hearing was taken up with the QC and other lawyers presenting the defence, plus a 10 minute break. Their affidavit from Geoff Rayner of LMA was only presented shortly before the hearing, and it was huge, so neither the Judge nor our representatives had had time to read it.

"During their testimony, they actually presented a new version of the Environment Management Plan. Quite extraordinary."

Freeway proponents' argument

"Their main argument was that granting this injunction would cost them millions of dollars. They did not challenge that the Incorporated Document said the offsets should be in place prior to construction. They did not produce a list of offsets that are being considered. They did produce a letter from Mark Winfield from DSE dated after the Incorporated Document saying they had one year to produce them. They created lots of date discussion that seemed without any relevance to the application."

We finished about 7:00pm with the Judge saying that she will have her decision on the interim injunction by close of day on Monday. The date for the regular appeal about the offsets will probably be set then."

Source:
Gillian Collins
Pines Protectors
0414 309 960

You might wonder why city staff in towns like Campbell River, Courtenay, and Nanaimo, BC or 500 other localities across the land are threatened with disciplinary action if they leak information about the hidden pro-growth agendas of their "employers"--the mayors and town councillors. Well, here is the context. Regional planners, under the direction of their political overlords---the proxies of developers----are trying to shove tens of thousands more people into the North Vancouver Island region. And they don't want people get wind of it, or at least to grasp the full implications of their devious plans. Sound familiar? It should. What is transpiring here is transpiring across Canada and the continent of North America--and elsewhere. New subdivisions are sprouting up all over the map in place of greenbelts, woodlands and marshes and the people have little say in the matter.

Fake environmentalists facilitate growth whilst pretending to 'manage' growth

The most frustrating thing about this development is that fake environmentalists are able to pose as the peoples' champions in resisting this imposition. But their issue is not with population growth, which they contend is inevitable, but with "sprawl"---even though at least half of sprawl is driven by population growth and not by poor land-use planning (cf. "Outsmarting Smart Growth" by Kolankiewicz, Beck and Camarotta). They want to 'manage' growth and steer it away from farmland, while packing the unending stream of newcomers into tighter and denser lots alongside existing residents, who are encouraged to surrender their living space in the interests of food security and the environment. Thus people are presented with a false antithesis. Either accept growth with sprawl or so-called 'smart' growth without it. The local NDP, Greens and environmentalists tell people that population growth is something not in their jurisdiction, that immigration (or child benefits) policy is a federal matter and that nothing can prevent inter-provincial migration as guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, growth out of their hands. Yet which political parties receive top marks from the Sierra Club? The federal Greens and the federal NDP. And what is their immigration policy? To increase the absurdly high immigration intake quota of the Harper Government by 25%, while matching or besting its pro-natalist programs.

Guilt and the Outdoor Living Channel

This is the pretend-game that enviromental NGOs play. Either population growth is not controllable, or even if it is, they have nothing to do with it--- and in any case, it has little bearing on environmental degradation, whether farmland or species loss, or GHG emissions. "It's not whether we grow", they argue, "but how we grow". Sprawl can be cured by good planning. Just squeeze tighter in the sardine can so that incoming migrants can snuggle up to you. And above all, feel guilty about having extra space in the backyard for your son to play in or a nature trail at the end of your block to take your dog. If it is nature that you want, well, you can get that on the Outdoor Living Channel, can't you?

Fight growth, not the symptoms of growth

Let me confess that whether it is the white-flight "Freedom 55s" from Alberta or California, or people from across the world, I've never felt lonely enough to want them living under my nose, and neither do most of us who chose our 'low-density" lifestyle. Some may call that selfish, I call it a human right. Is it my demand for space that is unreasonable, or the demand that I accept as reasonable a human population level that is 250% higher now than when I was born? Why are we being forced to accept population growth? One principal reason. Population growth is thought to be a necessary agent of economic growth, our Great God. The myth that continued economic growth is necessary, desirable, inevitable or even possible remains our major stumbling block, the first domino of misconceptions that must fall before we can reclaim any semblance of the quality of life that we once enjoyed. We are in a foot race with Mother Nature. If we don't stop growth, she will stop us. Time is almost up. Don't let the Pied Pipers of Fake Environmentalism lead you down a futile path. Fight growth, not the symptoms of growth.

Tim Murray

"Humankind cannot stand very much reality" T. S. Eliot

Analyst Chris Clugston offered a sobering assessment of our response to the crisis that is unfolding before us.

"Seems to me", he said, "that the 'perspectives' regarding our predicament fall into 5 clusters:

1. Delusionists--totally oblivious

2. Denialists--see reality but turn away

3. Happy Ending(ists)--acknowledge reality but believe that a "down-scaled" BAU will prevail

4. Soft Landing(ists)--acknowledge reality but believe that "lifeboats" are the answer

5. Realists-- (like you) who acknowledge the reality that imminent social collapse is inevitable

In America, there are about 300 million in the first cluster, 8 million in the second, a few thousand in the third, a few hundred in the fourth, and a handful in the fifth. I guess I'm glad; if it was the other way around, we'd be over-run by panicked idiots! Probably better that they watch Amercian Idol..."

I believe this to be a very succinct and accurate categorization. I am becoming increasingly impatient with people in clusters three and four. People who will not follow the logic of their own arguments to their logical conclusion. It all comes down to what I have argued is a flawed human brain that is a failed prototype of what should have rolled off the evolutionary assembly line to supercede us. Just as the Neanderthals were quite possibly driven off the field by a competitive disadvantage---a language deficit --- homo sapiens of our design should have been pushed off the plate by a hominid who could acknowledge and act upon long-term dangers. In other words, we play chess with an inability to see more than one move ahead. With a language of complex symbolism we had the facility to articulate thoughts in a future tense, to speak of potential scenarios and plan for them. But instead, in my view, language became our albatross, because we used it as vehicle of entertainment and obfuscation. If I were to write an epitaph of the human race, it would be "Death by Storytelling". For eons we sat around the campfire regaling listeners with tales---myths and legends that would entrance and beguile us. And we are still doing it. Our appetite for escapist novels, movies, heroic feats of athletic accomplishment and fairytales is insatiable. And if even a morsel of truth is to be swallowed, it must be coated in entertainment.

The entertainment industry is so pervasive now that it acts as a buffer against reality. Our minds occupy a virtual world, not the real one, which is too raw, shocking and depressing for a primate brain that cannot tolerate more than a minimal quota of bad news. This is not an exclusively human trait, of course. Paleo-climatologist Andrew Glikson commented after a lecture in Australia last year than even zebras practice denial in order to maintain a mental equilibrium. They can be grazing just a few short metres from a lion without panicking. There is an inborn calculation that allows them to "play the odds" that a predator will victimize some other member of the herd but not them. As Glikson put it, we must live day to day. We cannot take another step if we think the sky is falling. On a personal level, some measure of denial is a necessary coping strategy, especially for a species that can forsee death. The only difference, I think, is that humans have taken this pardonable personal posture and completely enveloped themselves in a make-believe world---thanks to language and symbolism. Rather than seek knowledge, we reach for a cushion---something which the priests of corporate capitalism and Madison Avenue are only to happy to throw at us. The sum total of delusional individuals is a collective that walks blindfolded toward the cliff of extinction. Organized religion is only the most developed form of delusional thinking. We are all religious it seems, most especially the so-called intelligentsia whose intellectual realizations are not truly internalized. We embrace faith without evidence and grasp at false hope. So even those in our movement who understand "reality", who see the cliff ahead, cannot help themselves from attaching a Hollywood ending to their story. After all, their audience demands it. We crave intellectual comfort food, not the clarity of mental castor oil.

A man in Ireland recently asked, "Is there anywhere to turn from the despair which all thinking and rational persons must feel?" Indeed there is. Hallucinate. Take refuge in a virtual reality. Perceive the real world differently and confuse that perception with objective reality. Embrace a faith like environmentalism, which seemingly offers us the hope of accommodating infinite growth by infinite reduction in our per capita consumption. Or believe that industrial civilization, or civilization itself, is sustainable, if only it was organized along equitable lines. Or immerse yourself in murder mysteries, children's fantasies or tales of the supernatural . Or invest your hope in a technological fix. Dream about new technological miracles that will save us from ourselves, much in the way that the Nazis dreamed of miracle weapons that would snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The name of the game, after all, is to feel good about yourself, not about actually changing society around you. To paraphrase Marx, philosophers have merely tried to understand the world, the point however, is to be able to live in it by looking at it through rose-coloured glasses---or inventing another world in which to dwell. My father did that from a hospital bed. After he had lost his wife of 63 years, and his favourite son, in quick succession, he suffered three months of intolerable grief, then snapped. Thereafter he would ask me how they were doing, and proceeded to tell me how he had spent the day in some exotic locale like Mexico, India or down the mine shaft where he slaved for much of his life, coating his lungs with particles that would eventually choke off his oxygen supply. Dad even imagined that his male nurse was the host of a TV program which he appeared on. It was as if there was a Stephen Spielberg in his brain working full time spinning out fables of the fantastic. And my father believed in everyone of them, recounting the details with complete sincerity and a straight face. He was like a child who compensated for his loneliness by conjuring up an imaginary friend. That is exactly what most of us do. We cannot take in the full panorama of stark and brutal reality, so we live in our minds--- or watch American Idol. And once every four years, we vote for a saviour who promises to fix the unfixable.

At this late date, should we disturb these refugees from horror with information that is not likely to save them? And what thanks will we get? Are Cassandras ever popular---or useful? I, too, struggle with these questions. I chose to humour my father with fictions of my own, constructing stories of how his wife and son were doing well and asking about him. It got him through the night---- until he died two years later from congestive heart failure. Perhaps that is what I am doing now. Getting through the night by writing about it, and pretending that writing about our predicament is in itself, an adequate alternative to solving it. As Peter Goodchild wrote with disarming candour: "The keyboard acts as a safety valve for low-level political dissent, serving roughly the same function that sex and alcohol have served at other times and in other places, allowing ordinary people to believe they are rebels when in fact they are doing nothing to disrupt the structure of society." I suppose then, that I belong to a sixth category of denial---that cluster of 'realists' who confuse their realism with making a difference.

Tim Murray
August 16, 2010

PS If you would like to visit reality, go to Chris Clugston's website, "Wake Up Amerika" at http://www.wakeupamerika.com/

The following presentation was made at community access on 16th July, 2010:-

Greetings. My talk today is about the treasures of the Tweed. I come as a representative of the animals who can’t speak and need people like me and others to speak for them.

I apologise for my last presentation when I spoke strongly against councillors’ decisions (calling them environmentally negligent and environmentally incompetent). The truth is every one of you has done something green and sustainable at least once – so please do more!

I would like to start by reaching out to you. It feels like there is an enormous gap between you and us. It feels like we are aliens from another planet in our way of thinking. Councillors have called us ‘morons’, ‘ratbags’, ‘two-headed’ and ‘dope smokers’ but we are just humans and, like the Na’vis in the movie Avatar, we care deeply about our environment and are increasingly distressed at the amount of development this council allows, much of it on land where threatened species live.

What happens to the animals is something I ask you to consider. For example, a bird raised from birth knows intimately every branch, every leaf, rock, hill, waterway. It has its territory that is its property. That bird knows every safe spot to hide, where to get food and water and where to sleep. When machines operated by humans come along and bulldoze the area, what happens to that bird? It is devastated. It has nowhere to live. Forced to invade another bird’s territory it will die a certain death. And it is so with every single animal. To me this is unfathomably tragic. I so wish you could feel it …

It is estimated that between 1972 and 2006 a total of 4 billion birds, mammals and reptiles died from land clearing. At the rate we are developing and overpopulating the land, in time we will have no wild species of animals left. Already 2/3rds of our species in the shire are at risk of extinction. Each death is a personal tragedy to that animal and its family.

You all have loved ones children and maybe even animal companions. It’s clear to see that animals have feelings. They mourn when their friends die, they are happy when they are having fun, they have fear when danger comes. They protect their offspring with their lives just like we do. Why wouldn’t their needs be as important as ours?

The majority of people in this shire do care about the environment and want it protected because Cr Milne who most represents environmental issues at every opportunity, received the highest number of votes in the history of this council. That proves we are not in the minority.

Councillors are the guardians of our unique ecological treasures and we would be so thrilled if you would protect this shire for a change and not develop it, especially where threatened koalas and other species live such as:-

• Kings Forest and Cobaki Lakes
• Not support car rallies through national forests and World Heritage areas
• Not try to dam Byrrill Creek which has 43 threatened species or
• Fill in natural creeks at Ozone St, Chinderah and
• Fully prosecute every developer who illegally cuts down protected trees
• Buy up land for wildlife habitat and corridors

It’s time we changed our direction away from growth and expanding populations. It’s time to put ENVIRONMENT before ECONOMY and SOCIETY as without biodiversity of fauna we cannot survive.

Next time you see the Treasures of the Tweed murals around town I hope you will hear the collective voice of the animals’ psyche calling out to you for help. They really need it.

Menkit Prince

QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR JOAN VAN LIESHOUT
"I would like to know if you personally feel that animals are more important than people".

Reply: Without biodiversity humans cannot survive so therefore humans and animals are equally important.

COMMENT FROM MAYOR WARREN POLGLASE
The Tweed Sun, July 22, 2010
"Community access is about allowing people the opportunity to talk about some issues, like the people who spoke about the IGA store and the iBar, but when you get inundated about a lot of other issues - and this is orchestrated by some people - I think it sometimes abuses the process" said Cr Polglase.

"We have the same people coming in talking about the same issues but I don't think that's what community access is all about."

"Some of the wildlife people seemed to expand on what the numbers are and what they aren't. There is a difference in opinion between various wildlife groups on numbers. When you get this sort of thing happening, as a council you start to think who is right and who is wrong and maybe both numbers are wrong. The whole system in that area is being abused."

Asked if the council would consider changing its access system, Cr Polglase said council should be looking at alternative ways of conducting community access if it meant getting meaningful outcomes.

COMMENT FROM THE TWEED SUN, July 29, 2010
A Tweed woman may have seen Avatar just a few too many times - which could explain its incredible box office takings. At a recent Tweed council community access meeting at Murwillumbah, Menkit Prince, a regular speaker on wildlife issues, compared the people of the Tweed to the Na'Vi - the tribe indigenous to Pandora in James Cameron's mega-hit. She spoke of developments destroying the shire's wildlife and fauna and called council to 'stop the destruction.' Later she was asked by councillor Joan van Lieshout whether she valued the needs of animals above humans, she replied 'They are both equal.'

RESPONSE FROM MENKIT

To Cr van Lieshout:
Asking personal questions of residents presenting to council versus questions related to the topic of discussion, seems unfair considering we are not allowed to ask any kind of question to councillors at community access!

To Mayor Polglase:
1. It's been 4 months since my last presentation. Is this abuse?
2. If I gave inaccurate information, why did you not inform me of this at the time? I would certainly like to know if anything I say is inaccurate.
3. If different wildlife groups have different figures does not mean they are all wrong.
4. The reason why I make presentations is not because I am trying to abuse the process but because something is not being addressed. Why is council not listening to us? Is this what you call a meaningful outcome, getting rid of community access?

To Tweed Sun
I am amused that you think I have seen the movie Avatar millions of times and have caused this movie to have raked in $2 billion (as if I had that much money and that much time to have watched it so many times!).
It may surprise you to know that I have seen Avatar only once. Do you think it's impossible for someone to 'get it' in one sitting just because you can't? If you were listening to my presentation you would have understood the analogy instead of writing this exaggerated piece of journalism.

Well, I certainly got some mileage out of this one!

In terms of environmental management Australia is just a collection of colonies not unlike the days of very early settlement. Policies that govern the control of feral animals and natives that are perceived as pests differ from state to state (and territory).
In Western Australia, it is legal for pastoralists to make a living from the keeping of feral goat herds. Ooops! Did I say feral goats….. they are now called rangeland goats. Will Scott is a pastoralist that keeps a “rangeland goat” herd of approximately 40,000 goats on his 400,000 hectare property near Mt Magnet in WA. This huge collection of one of the most environmentally destructive feral animals is maintained on a property with no fencing whatsoever.

Killing dingoes to protect goats?

You would be excused for thinking that Will Scott’s choice of livestock is a throw back to the 19th century however he does not stop there. In recent times he has called on the state government to increase their efforts in controlling wild dog numbers as they have reduced his “rangeland goat” herd by one half in a matter of 18 months. At this point it should be pointed out that the use of the term “wild dog” is thrown around by landholders freely and collectively describes dingoes, domestic dogs and hybrids. This particular part of Western Australia contains predominantly dingoes but that of course depends on who you are listening to. In a recent article in “The West Australian” a farmer with a property closer to the coast estimated the proportion of dingoes to be 65%, the remainder being either feral domestic dogs or hybrids. A dingo conservationist would more than likely increase that number.

Nevertheless, the removal of our native mammalian top-order predator from pastoral areas is an obsession of landholders Australia wide. Will Scott would have us believe that increasing 1080 baiting programmes as well as increasing government funded doggers is necessary for the sake of his goat herd. Unfortunately our state government has obliged and now pays the salary of 8 fulltime doggers to bait and lay steel traps. The images of dingoes hanging from trees and fences reminds me of similar images depicting wedge tailed eagles or Tasmanian tigers that suffered a similar fate in days gone by. Both of these misunderstood animals were demonised by the pastoral industry of the time making it easier for the general public to accept their wholesale slaughter. Personally I find it offensive that we are slaughtering our native predators to protect the herds of feral animals that provide the income for so few.

There is no mistaking the fact that dingoes and sheep do not mix. Dingoes are notorious for killing more sheep than they can possibly eat and this doesn’t win them any friends amongst landholders. More enlightened pastoralists are looking at alternative methods to shooting, trapping and baiting such as employing the services of guard dogs or donkeys. This appears to be a very effective method in reducing stock losses and surely represents the way forward for this industry.

The dingo's role in Australian ecosystems

It has been demonstrated time and time again that dingoes are an essential ecosystem component on mainland Australia. Where there are dingoes there is biodiversity, where there are dingoes there are relatively few small predators such as cats or foxes. There are also reduced numbers of other feral animals including rabbits and pigs. Last year University of Sydney scientist Dr Mike Letnic published a study outlining the crucial role dingoes play in Australian ecosystems. The presence of dingoes in an area is associated with an increase in the numbers of small native mammals and a decrease in fox and cat numbers. Dingoes are also a key regulator of goat numbers as Will Scott has already pointed out however this is an environmental benefit and therefore has no short term economic value to pastoralists like Will Scott or the government of the day. Unfortunately our government of the day is run by Colin Barnett who also happens to be a farmer of the less enlightened kind himself and as such does not rate environmental issues at the top of his list. One only needs to look at Barnett's track record of staff and ministerial appointments to indicate how environmental issues are dealt with in WA. His appointment of Donna Faragher as environment minister clearly represents a conflict of interests due to her husband working for LNG giant Woodside Petroleum in government relations. Faragher's defence of Woodside's seismic blasting in waters containing pregnant humpback whales clearly demonstrates how obscene the current situation is. In addition, Barnett appointed a Woodside executive as his chief of staff, our mining minister has interests in BHP Billiton and Woodside AND Barnett's daughter in law is a senior executive at Woodside.

Dingo predation of kangaroos

The issue of dingo predation on kangaroos seems to generate differing opinions amongst landholders and those who oppose the kangaroo industry. The science however continually demonstrates that dingoes are in fact a significant predator of kangaroos particularly at the juvenile level. There have been some arguments put forward that dingoes have had little impact on kangaroo numbers however I would suggest this is not the case. It is extremely unlikely that a “herbivore utopia” existed in Australia prior to white settlement. Kangaroos like any other herbivore are subject to predation by a top order predator, this relationship is vital to the survival of both species as it is in any prey/predator relationship throughout the world. Dingoes are also capable of taking down the oldest and sickest individuals particularly when they are hunting in packs. Dingo predation of kangaroo populations at the juvenile and very old level is a natural way of maintaining a healthy population of both dingoes and kangaroos. Contrast this with the kangaroo industry picking off individuals in their prime or just after the juvenile stage and you have a disaster just waiting to happen.

Kangaroo meat advocates will not mention the dingo

Wedge Tailed eagles once suffered the same image problem

Advocates of the kangaroo industry will seldom acknowledge the role the dingo plays (or should play) in the Australian environment. The consumption of kangaroo meat as a green alternative to traditional livestock is trumpeted as a key step towards improving Australia’s degraded rangelands however the dingo doesn’t rate a mention in the rhetoric spouted by scientists such as Professor Mike Archer. He is more interested in resurrecting the Tasmanian tiger using cloning tools similar to those portrayed in the film “Jurassic Park”. Surely we should be more interested in saving a top order native predator such as the dingo who is still amongst us but suffers an image problem due the rantings of goat farmers and the like who would have us all believe the dingo is all but bred out due to wild feral dogs. Public sympathy appears to be low for the plight of the dingo due to the acceptance of barbaric methods still practised when killing these animals. Newspaper articles depicting steel-jaw traps and dingoes hanging from trees do not generate the outrage you would expect for a native animal but then again the public has been conditioned to not really see dingoes as true native animals.

The introduction of the dingo

After all, they are just another dog that can interbreed with our more familiar domestic dogs and they were introduced to this continent approximately 5000 years ago. The important factor here is the role that they have played in Australia’s ecosystems over the last 5000 or so years. It is generally accepted that the arrival of the dingo onto Australian shores and its subsequent invasion of every habitat resulted in the extinction of the Tasmanian tiger on the mainland. The dingo was a more efficient predator and some suggest the tiger itself formed part of the dingoes diet which in itself is extremely varied and can include anything from grasshoppers to the biggest red kangaroo. The newest addition to Australia’s native fauna then proceeded to settle in for several millennia before the arrival of the white man. The dingo wasn’t a marsupial like its predecessor but it wasn’t the first placental mammal to set foot on Australian shores. By this time several species of bats and water rats had already made Australia their home and of course the first Australians: the Aboriginals had been here for a very, very long time.

5000 years is a long time for a species to settle in, the rich biodiversity of the Australian continent as witnessed by the first white settlers is proof the dingo is a true native animal and is more than capable of playing its important predatory role in the Australian environment. The fact that it is a dog is irrelevant. Some scientists argue that even hybrid dingoes can fill that role as long as they share the same behavioural traits that are unique to Australian dingoes.

Using dingoes to improve biodiversity

With this in mind, why are dingoes not included in biodiversity programmes such as the ACT kangaroo management plan? The reason given is that the reintroduction of native predators is not “socially acceptable” however this is not applied to the brutal slaughtering of thousands of kangaroos via the gun. Is herding hundreds of kangaroos including joeys into a pen and then killing them via lethal injection “socially acceptable”?

I have heard that the kangaroo and the emu are included on the Australian coat of arms because neither can take a backward step. If our motto is to only move forward why can’t we apply this thinking when it comes to the treatment of our native animals and environment. From the very first day white people arrived in Australia we have shot, poisoned and trapped any animal that has stood in our way. Today we continue these barbaric actions on an even greater scale in our endless quest to “tame” what is left of our wilderness. As long as state governments continue to tow the line with cattle, sheep and goat farmers and their representative bodies such as Agforce our wildlife is doomed. As long as state governments such as the current government in Western Australia resemble mining company boardrooms the environment will always finish last.

Source of illustration.

Grandiose fantasies

Grandiose fantasies about filling up a continent to create a great and powerful nation are not exclusive to Australia. Demographic hubris is alive and well in Canada too, and even now, after the loss of 20% of our best farmland to development, with more than a thousand species at risk and an immigrant population that has, over the last two decades, generated four times as much GHG emissions as the Albert Tar Sands megaproject, there are people who believe in a Big Canada concept. Irving Studin of the University of Toronto is one of them.

Five Canadians Respond to Irvin Studin’s Proposal for a Big Canada

(Sources:) http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Canada+should+100M+population+essay+says/3147990/story.html and http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Challenges+100M+populace+overwhelming/3163659/story.html

"Challenges of 100M populace overwhelming," The Ottawa Citizen, June 17, 2010

REPLIES:

Re: Canada should aim for 100M in population, June 13.

Irvin Studin's vision of Canada with a population of 100 million stirs the imagination in terms of our increasing our capacity for playing a role of importance on the world stage. Unfortunately, however, what might have been possible in Wilfrid Laurier's time a century ago is no longer realistic today.

For one thing, the ecological footprint of individual Canadians is much larger now and the environmental impact of such a massive increase in population would be overwhelming.

In terms of current immigration policies, it could also be extremely costly for Canadian taxpayers -- particularly because of our generous system of social programs that did not exist 100 years ago. It is estimated that the benefits newcomers now receive already amount to tens of billions of dollars a year more than what they pay in taxes.

A third and particularly challenging problem would be the integration into Canadian society of huge numbers of people from very different cultural backgrounds. With the connections they can now maintain with their former homelands through satellite TV, the Internet, inexpensive overseas travel, etc., assimilation of large concentrations of newcomers is increasingly problematic even today.

Nor would there be significant advantages in terms of economies of scale as a result of domestic population increases since we are now very much part of a global trading community.

Cities such as Toronto and Vancouver are already struggling to cope with rapidly increasing populations due to international migration and will hardly welcome the prospect of dealing with even faster growth.

Martin Collacott,
Vancouver
Collacott is a former Canadian ambassador.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Challenges+100M+populace+overwhelming/3163659/story.html#ixzz0rAvfb7qa
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saucy double entendre

While the saucy double entendre query of whether "size matters" may produce snickers from those in that frame of mind, the proposition that Canada's population should be encouraged through immigration to grow to 100 million is no laughing matter. "Size" does matter. And the consequences are profoundly far-reaching and important.

With a global population of 6.8 billion today and over 9 billion expected by 2050, what the planet - and that includes Canada, Mr Studin - does not need is more people; quite the reverse. Relentlessly expanding human numbers place ever more demands on the earth, leading to deforestation, biodiversity loss, soil exhaustion, vanishing fisheries, and increases in
greenhouse gas emissions. Typically, conflicts that dominate media headlines are caused and/or exacerbated by these and other associated resource scarcities. Today we face unprecedented global challenges including food and water shortages, a looming energy crisis and climate change, all driven by ever-expanding population increases. In Canada environmental degradation is a sad, growing fact of life. Prime farm land is being gobbled up, traffic congestion is worsening as our cities expand, and with urban sprawl air quality is deteriorating.

"Size" does matter, Mr Studin, and what we don't need is more and more people. If anything, we need fewer, since fewer translates into fewer problems, greater social justice, a better standard of living for everyone.

Look at Sweden, envied by many for its quality of life and for its outstanding role on the world stage, whether as peace keepers, aid givers (leagues ahead of Canada) and, with a population much smaller than our own, a voice in international fora that is listened to and respected as Canada's once was. Sweden's environmental record puts ours to shame. It's not
population "size" that gives Sweden its clout, any more than it is Bangladesh's 130 million that accounts for its more modest standing on the world stage. What enables Sweden to "punch above its weight" internationally is explained by factors of quality not quantity. It is those very qualities that Mr Studin and the rest of us should be addressing and not the simplistic, fallacious notion that a larger Canada would somehow automatically become a better, more influential Canada.

Clifford Garrard
VP, Population Institute of Canada
Ottawa

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Letters Editor,

RE: Canada should aim for 100M in population, essay says, June 13

The degree to which Irvin Studin is divorced from environmental realities is breathtaking, even for an economist. If most of Canada’s vast territory were habitable, people would already be living there.
Yet satellite images of the world at night shows that most of Canada is as dark as Antarctica— because much of it is about as habitable as Antarctica. Trying to put large numbers of people into such an environment would require tremendous expenditures of energy (transport of food, heating of homes etc) and result in a concomitant increase in our greenhouse gas production.

Most newcomers to Canada settle in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, and only a handful settle outside the 12 largest urban centres. Our large cities are already bursting at the seams with increasing congestion and smog and ever more stressed infrastructure, and have trouble dealing with their own wastes. Only about 5% of Canada’s land surface is classified as dependable agricultural land. Due to the massive population increases of recent decades, urban uses now cover
14,300 square km of dependable agricultural land. How smart is it to destroy one’s own food security?

There have been at least three reports that specifically looked at population growth in Canada from an environmental perspective (Science Council of Canada Report No. 25 in 1976; a now declassified confidential report to the Privy Council in 1991 called The environment: marriage between earth and mankind; the Healey report of
1997 on the ecosystems of the Fraser River). All documented the stress that population growth is putting on Canada’s agricultural land and ecosystems. The collapse of the cod fishery and the recent spectacularly poor run of salmon in the Fraser River support their conclusions.

In terms of consumption of resources, greenhouse gas production, and stress on agricultural land and ecosystems, Canada is already overpopulated.

Sincerely,

Madeline Weld President, Population Institute of Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Letters Editor,

Re: Ian MacLeod - aim for 100 million

"At 100 million, this is among the most powerful and important countries in the world. And the world will takenotice." Phrased another way, "the sun never sets on the British Empire" or "the beginning of a 1000 yearReich".

Given the environmental and economic issues looming in this century, it is doubtful the world will take positivenotice of Canada's continuing on its current path of being the worst performer in carbon emissions of theKyoto 58 signatories save Saudi Arabia. Nor will our second worst per capita income growth in the developedworld over the past 4 decades draw much applause.

We are already taking ridicule from all sides for our worst-in-the-developed-world environmental performance andwe get singled out regularly on our poverty and productivity levels. Both of these failures are driven primarily byour policy of mass immigration, again, the highest in the world over the past 40 years.

In this century, the world will be looking to countries of whatever size which can deliver solutions notjingoistic slogans and fantasies of empire from a bygone era.

Yours truly, John Meyer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How to make Canada "Big"

Letters editor, Ottawa Citizen

So Irvin Studin believes that by becoming a nation of 100 million people through immigration, Canada would becomea big player on the world stage. (Citizen June 13/2010)
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Canada+should+100M+population+essay+says/3147990/story.html

Presently some 80 per cent of New Canadians lack the skills necessary to earn an income high enough to pay enoughtaxes to reimburse government for the services they consume. In fact, Professor Herb Grubel of Simon FraserUniversity estimated that by 2002 the cohort of immigrants who came in 1990 were imposing a staggering netcost of $18 billion a year. No doubt that figure would be much higher today.

Here's a thought. Rather than importing this fiscal burden, we take the 18 plus billion dollars that would havespent on immigration, and deploy it instead to development aid in developing countries made conditional onfamily planning. In that way we could help people where they are helped best---at home where they live, andthereby alleviate the conditions that motivate them to leave----the competition for land, water, food and otherresources made scarce by overpopulation. Imagine what clout and status such a policy would bring to Canada.Not only would we meet the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent of our GDP on foreign aid, we over-achieve itby leaps and bounds and set an example for the rest of the world. And by doing so, we would also provide neededrespite to our prime farmland and endangered species habitat that have been bulldozed at an alarming rate tobuild housing for our runaway immigrant-driven population growth--- already the highest of G8 countries. A win-win proposition all around.

Forget the demographic ego-trip, Mr Studin. That is how to make Canada big and influential.

Tim Murray VP Biodiversity First

Last year Russia banned the import of kangaroo meat because of health concerns. The European Union President is also advocating a ban on kangaroo meat, but for wildlife preservation and cruelty reasons. Australian AgForce and the Australia-Russia Business Council have got together with the Queensland government to try to reverse this situation and they have been strongly courting the Russian meat trade again. In early June the Russian Trade Minister Yuri Aleshin was toured around Western Queensland with this trade in mind. Ironically he was recorded on an ABC radio broadcast posing the question regarding the kangaroos..."but where are they?" Obviously he had not seen the 'hordes' that are so often said to exist.

Last year I visited a kangaroo rehabilitation center in Queensland where orphans are raised by the remarkable Anne Maree Dineen. I was struck by how small the kangaroos there were compared to those I see on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria. Anne-Maree told me that the average life-span of a kangaroo in Queensland is about 2 years, since so many are shot. The big ones are shot first, then the trade goes after the little ones. Their normal life-expectancy can be 20 years plus under other conditions. I also noticed the extreme nervousness and vigilance of these small kangaroos there, which was also in contrast to those in relatively safe conditions in Victoria - albeit the Victorian ones are being starved out by development, harassed by farmers and killed on roads there, as safe havens go under tarmac.

Sixth Extinction Event

There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past.

Some biologists have begun to feel that this biodiversity crisis — this “Sixth Extinction” — is even more severe, and more imminent, than Harvard Biologist Wilson had supposed in 1993. The current Sixth Extinction is different to extinction events in the past as it is a patently human-caused event.

UN Report on fish stock depletion

According to the  UN's environment branch, if the world remained on its path of overfishing, fish stocks could become uneconomic to exploit, or extinct, by 2050.

Some 30% of fish stocks are estimated to be badly depleted already.  British fish stocks have dropped by 94 percent in the past 118 years and commercial fishing has profoundly changed seabed ecosystems, leading to a collapse in numbers of many species.  British  members of parliament and experts holding talks in London fear that as fishermen seek to feed a growing wealthier population, they will demand to move up the food chain and inevitably there will be a crisis. 

Cod fisheries collapsed in the North West Atlantic in the late 1980s due to overfishing, and have never recovered. A new study reveals that the changes in top-predator abundance were driven by human over-exploitation of large, predator fish species.  According to scientists, fishing quota systems have done nothing to mitigate the fall and underline the need for urgent action to stop the overexploitation of European fisheries and rebuild stocks.

Global fish stocks like bluefin tuna are in decline; in Europe over 80 percent are overfished and a third are outside safe limits. Both Sea Shepherd ships, the Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker, will head for the Mediterranean from the Southern Ocean. The objective will be to intercept and oppose the illegal operations of Bluefin tuna poachers.

The Icelandic trawler Áskell EA 48 (now the Birtingur NK) at Seyðisfjörður. As a fishing nation, Iceland is vulnerable to depletion of the world's fish stocks. source: Wikimedia commons)

We need to bring to the attention of the international public that one of the most unique fish species in the world, the Bluefin tuna, is on the brink of extinction due to the illegal fisheries driven by Japan’s insatiable demand for this expensive fish, says Sea Shepherd Founder and President Captain Paul Watson. Corruption, and the rising market value of the Bluefin is preventing any real conservation efforts.

Economic Stimulus to fish

More than 20 million people employed in the fishing industry may need to be taken out of service and retrained for other work over the next 40 years if the final collapse of fish stocks in oceans around the globe is to be avoided, the UN warned today.

At the heart of the UN's analysis is the $27bn of subsidies it estimates is being injected into fishing every year, mainly by developing countries. Among the most egregious practices targeted by the report are inducements to increase the size of massive trawler fleets that are among the main culprits of overfishing, and fuel subsidies on fuel for fleets. This “helping” the industry is actually making its decline more rapid!

At stake is not just the biodiversity of the oceans, but a substantial chunk of the global economy and the livelihoods that depend on it. However, the argument is cyclic! If we don't stop our population growth, our consumption habits, our raping of the oceans, there won't be an economy or livelihoods to negotiate.

Worst Offenders

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) refuses to name the worst offenders in overfishing, though it says its final report will contain figures that will enable readers to “figure out where the problem is”. The Spanish and Japanese governments and the EU, which have been singled out by environmentalists for criticism, have been sent draft chapters of the report, alongside other leading fishing nations.

Overfishing by Japan, the United States, France, Spain and Portugal are mainly responsible for the decline of the fish.

Spain took a massive 46 per cent of all subsidy payments and France is guilty of using the controversial driftnets banned under EU rules, which reach for dozens of kilometres and lead to large amounts of bycatch.

Victory for Japan

Delegates overturned the protection of the porbeagle shark, agreed earlier this week, and rejected protection measures for other shark species in the closing hours of the global summit in March on trade in endangered species in Doha.

The decisions made in the last hours of the Doha meeting made it a clean sweep by Japan, which had mounted an orchestrated campaign to vote down all 13 marine species proposed for listing under the Convention for the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

Conservationists say the irony is that Japan is hosting the meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity this year but is the country that did the most at this meeting to undermine the protection of marine biodiversity!

The head of Monaco's delegation to CITES, Patrick Van Klaveren, warned the Sydney Morning Herald:
Bluefin tuna: Japan 'lobbying' blasted at CITES talks

It will not be [the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species] that is the ruin of professional [fisheries]. It will be nature that lays down the sanction, and it will be beyond appeal.

Photo: A specimen of Dissostichus mawsoni the Antarctic toothfish (Notothenioidei, Nototheniidae)captured and photographed underwater in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. This fish was approximately 100 lbs. D. mawsoni is closely related to and resembles D. eleginoides, commonly called the Chilean Sea Bass, and both fishes are probably marketed under that name. Both species may be at risk for overfishing. source: Wikimedia commons

Dead oceans, dead planet

Dead zones are occurring in many areas along the coasts of major continents, and they are spreading over larger areas of the sea floor. Because very few organisms can tolerate the lack of oxygen in these areas, they can destroy the habitat in which numerous organisms make their home.

There are 400 dead zones across the globe. They are caused by die-offs of phytoplankton from the surface. These organisms sink to the ocean floor when they die, where bacteria break them down- taking in oxygen and giving off carbon dioxide. High levels of carbon dioxide and low levels of oxygen in the water make it unsuitable for life.

OCEAN 2012

We need to create huge no-fishing zones in the oceans so fish can be offered a refuge for breeding. As well, those who eat fish could also reduce their consumption and base their diets on more sustainable and the wide variety of plant-based sources.
OCEAN 2012 PETITION

This is getting to be habitual. Two years ago I wrote a eulogy to explain why three-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee, David Brower, quit the Sierra Club, shortly before his death. Since the former club director had played a pivotal role in hoisting the club from marginality to a potent lobbyist, I likened his resignation to the Pope renouncing Catholicism and taking leave of the Vatican. Among other things, Brower was very upset over the refusal of the Sierra Club leadership to address the role that immigrant-driven population growth was playing in the environmental degradation of America. As I wrote then,

"... after 67 years this great crusader felt compelled to resign, ‘with no regret and a bit of desperation’. Brower, you see, had a problem. He had a problem with corruption, bribery, political correctness and myopia. He knew that demography drives not only human destiny but the destinies of the species we impact, and that unchanged immigration policies would double America’s population by 2100, or if liberalized, add as many as another 700 million by that time. He also knew that post-1970 immigrants and their descendants would be the decisive force fuelling American population growth. If unchecked, it surely meant ecological Armageddon for the country. In resigning Brower stated that “Overpopulation is perhaps the biggest problem facing us, and immigration is part of the problem. It has to be addressed.”

Following the posting of this fact, Brower's daughter Barbara contested it as a "gross mischaracterization" of her father's position, and insisted that immigration was "a very small" part of his frustration with the Sierra Club. His primary concern was with "the inequitable and unsustainable greed underlying American consumer society.", and while he was worried about " inflating the number of consumers in America his approach was to work on the 'push' factors that drove immigrants to America." It was apparent that her father's unequivocal remark was not convenient for the times or for her social-justice agenda. The David Brower she would like to remember is obviously not the one who praised the lifeboat ethics of Garrett Hardin on the front cover of Hardin’s 1968 book, “The Voyage of the Beagle”.

Now it seems that Phillippe Cousteau Jr. is also distancing himself from a family legacy. One of the more notable things his grandfather Jacques-Yves Cousteau said was the following:

"We must alert and organise the world's people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises - exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources. Overconsumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today. "

Fast forward to May 28, 2010, and Phillippe Cousteau Jr., appearing in an interview with popular comedian Bill Maher on his program “Real Time”, managed to speak eloquently about the collapse of our oceans without even mentioning population growth. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/phillipe-cousteau-jr-to-b_n_594308.html Now, eight minutes is certainly not enough for anyone to catalogue all the environmental dangers that threaten us. And since the interview was prompted by the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, it was natural that the quest for oil and the state of the oceans would be the focus of the conversation. Phillippe Cousteau’s mission had to be make viewers understand that the oceans can’t take it anymore. They couldn’t take it 50 years ago, and it was nonsense to believe that they could take it now. Dead zones are popping up all over the world while a sea of plastic—a petroleum product---is dominating a portion of the Pacific the size of Texas. As he said, we are becoming victims of our self-mutilation, amputing the limbs of our life-support system. Nevertheless, it would not have been too time-consuming for him to mention, just in passing, , that the growing number of humans—particularly in affluent America---- has had at least something to do with the negative human impact on marine biodiversity. Grandfather Jacques thought so. Why don’t the environmentalists of Phillippe’s generation think so----or at least think it warrants mention? Instead they take the safe bet and play to the gallery with remarks such as Phillippe’s: “I think people have too much faith in big business.” Now that’s really going out on a limb, isn’t it? Even a conservative audience would applaud that one.

My, how the environmental movement has changed since the first Earth day in 1970. Population growth was once on centre stage, but now that we have twice as many consumers wreaking havoc upon the world as we did then, it is hardly to be seen on the green radar. Even the sons and daughters of those environmental icons who did take it seriously will not pick up the torch. Their passion is laudable but their comprehension is incomplete. This recalls the generation gap that nineteenth century Russian novelist Ivan Turgenev wrote about in his classic, “Fathers and Sons”. The young man accuses the middle-aged man of having content but no force, but the middle-aged man counters that the young man has force but no content. Things haven’t changed much since then it seems, as the cycle repeats itself at the most critical phase of human history.

As George Bush the lessor might have put it, I think we have a Zeitgeist-change situation on our hands here. This is a generation gap that we can’t afford.

Population growth a threat to biodiversity

The Australian Conservation Foundation has nominated human population growth as a “key threatening process” to Australia’s biodiversity under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act).

“The bigger our population gets, the harder it is for us to reduce greenhouse pollution, protect natural habitats near urban and coastal areas and ensure a good quality of life for all Australians,” said ACF’s director of strategic ideas, Charles Berger.

“More people means more roads, more urban sprawl, more dams, more transmission lines, more energy and water use, more pollutants in our air and natural environment and more pressure on Australia’s animals, plants, rivers, reefs and bushland.

“We need to improve urban and coastal planning and management of environmental issues, but we can’t rely on better planning alone to protect our environment. Rapid population growth makes sustainable planning nearly impossible, so stabilising Australia’s population by mid-century should be a national policy goal.”

The EPBC Act nomination cites many government reports that acknowledge the direct link between population growth and environmental degradation.

The nomination looks at four specific areas where human population growth is directly affecting native species and ecological communities – the coastal wetlands of South East Queensland, Mornington Peninsula and Westernport Bay in Victoria, the Fleurieu Peninsula in South Australia and the Swan Coastal Plain in Western Australia.

ACF is calling on the Government to set a population policy that will:

* Stabilise Australia’s population by mid-century.
* Increase humanitarian migration and continue to support family reunions, but substantially reduce skilled migration.
* Return Australia’s overall migration to 1990s levels.
* Adequately fund strategies to minimise the environmental impact of population growth.

Source: Press Release Date: 23-Mar-2010

Search for another food bowl:

The National Water Initiative, agreed in 2004 by the Council of Australian Governments, provided a national blueprint for water reform. The National Water Initiative recognised that, as the reality of changing water resource security in the south is better understood, there would be a need to consider the potential for other parts of Australia, such as the north, to support future land and water development.

One element of the plan was to establish the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce to address its enquiries to the key surface and groundwater systems within the Timor Sea and Gulf of Carpentaria drainage divisions and the North East Coast drainage division north of Cairns. 

The Taskforce concluded that developing Northern Australia as an integrated, sustainable region was a complex policy challenge.

On paper at least, the figures are indeed astonishing: some one billion litres of rain dumps on northern Australia each year. Could the north satisfy not only Australia's rapidly growing population, but also the future needs of our Asian and South Pacific neighbours?

It seems not. Or at least not to that degree according to a three-year Federal Government study into the sustainable development of northern Australia. It also points to the damage that high rainfall can do, stripping away top soil, leaving the ground infertile.

The Top End is governed by its two seasons - the wet season from November to April when it's a deluge, and the dry, when the taps are off. The north still has that powerful hold over people's imagination.

Projects such as the Green Hills dam on the Gilbert River near Georgetown, a dam on the Flinders River at Hughenden, and other water storage facilities researched for the Flinders at Richmond and Julia Creek and along the Norman River have proved to be pipe dreams for those western communities.

The CSIRO water study, presented to the taskforce last year, found there was not enough water to irrigate large swaths of land in the north without doing major damage to the rivers and the surrounding environment.

The taskforce recommended no new dams, but advocated a mosaic of small-scale irrigation systems "that have carefully combined arable land with available water".

In other words, for all the southern Murray-Darling Basin’s problems with record drought and the threat of a drying, warming climate, the Northern Australia Land and Water Task Force report found that northern Australia has only limited potential for expanding irrigated agriculture and horticulture – between 20,000 and 40,000 hectares, compared to about 1.4 million hectares in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Northern Australia’s rich biodiversity and strong Indigenous cultures are world renowned and should form the basis for sustainable economic development across the region.....There can be a strong economic and conservation future for northern Australia, but it will lie in the development of industries that are well suited to the region, such as tourism and good management of fisheries and land, says Don Henry, ACF executive director.

ACF believes a sustainable future, particularly for Indigenous communities, lies in increased opportunities in these industries.

The Murray-Darling Basin

The Murray-Darling Basin covers 1,061,469 square kilometres or approximately one-seventh (14%) of the total area of Australia (7,692,024 square kilometres).
It is the lifeblood for eastern Australia, stretching 1,061,469 square kilometres through Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The three main river systems that make up the Murray-Darling Basin include the Darling River, the Murrumbidgee River, the Lachlan River and Billabong Creek; and the Murray River itself.

It contains over 40% of all Australian farms, which produce wool, cotton, wheat, sheep, cattle, dairy produce, rice, oil-seed, wine, fruit and vegetables for both domestic and overseas markets. As Australia's most important agricultural region, the Basin produces one third of Australia's food supply and supports over a third of Australia's total gross value of agricultural production.

The Basin's most valuable resource is water.

The Murray-Darling Basin is home to a large number of different plants and animals.
About the Murray River
It has at least 35 endangered species of birds, 16 species of endangered mammals and over 35 different native fish species. Unfortunately, 20 species of mammals have already become extinct.

The Murray-Darling Basin is one of the richest sources of Indigenous archaeological and heritage sites in Australia. There are many hundreds of significant Indigenous sites along
the River. They include scarred trees, burial sites, campsites, canoe trees, hidden sites and earth sites.

Almost the entire Basin had been explored and occupied by Europeans within 50 years of the crossing of the Great Dividing Range. The development of a European way of life resulted in unintentional degradation of many of the Basin’s natural resources. This lack of knowledge about soil, climate, and geology of the Murray-Darling Basin has led to serious environmental problems including salinity, rising water tables and excessive vegetation clearances.

A 2001 report:

Forty per cent of the river length assessed was impaired, having lost a significant number of aquatic macroinvertebrates expected to occur there.

Ten per cent of river length was found to be severely impaired, having lost at least 50 per cent of the types of aquatic macroinvertebrates expected to occur there.

More than 95 per cent of the river length assessed in the Murray-Darling Basin had an environmental condition that was degraded, and 30 per cent was substantially modified from the original condition.

Native vegetation is currently being threatened by rising salinity (salt) levels; human-made changes to flooding and drying areas; and careless campers, boaters and land-developers. Nevertheless, with climate change threatening to make matters worse, finding a solution to the water crisis is becoming more urgent.

Salinity
Close to half of Australia's saline seepage is located in Murray-Darling Basin, especially the Lower Murray-Darling.
Three processes greatly increase the rate of salinisation: land clearing, erection of river structures, and irrigation.

Land Degradation
The main forms of land degradation are:

Mr Kelvin Thomson (Wills) Monday, 8 February 2010

At the time of Steve Irwin's death in 2005 he was one of the most recognised and respected Australian faces here in Australia and even more so right around the world. Former Prime Minister John Howard, to his credit, arranged a $6 million federal government grant to purchase 135,000 hectares in northern Cape York, preserve it as part of the national reserve system and name it the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve as a tribute to the life and conservation work of Australia's crocodile hunter.

According to the federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, a stunning array of wildlife roams the property, including the endangered northern quoll and the great palm cockatoo. Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve is home to six highly vulnerable plant species. The nearby Wenlock River is the richest in freshwater fish diversity of any Australian river, including speartooth sharks, sawfish and the estuarine crocodile. Of the 32 ecosystems found on the reserve, 21 are threatened. Many of these are found nowhere in the world but in Cape York. The department of the environment says that preserving them is of global importance.

(Great Palm Cockatoo - courtesy of wikimedia commons)

You would assume, then, given this history, that nothing could possibly go wrong. Regrettable, this is not the case. A mining company named Cape Alumina has lodged a request to strip mine over 12,000 hectares in the western part of Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve for bauxite. The result, according to Steve Irwin's widow, Terry Irwin, will be a total loss of original biodiversity, including all vegetation and wildlife. She says regenerated trees will lack the hollows that are crucial for nesting birds, possums and goannas. She also says that removing the bauxite would dramatically change the natural water flows to the unique and fragile rainforest springs on the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve and damage the Wenlock River system.

I want to join with my parliamentary colleague Senator Mark Furner, I want to join with the nine scientists who have submitted a detailed report on the area and I want to join with the over 217.000 people who have signed the petition to save Steve's place in saying there should be no strip mining in Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve.

In the south we have made a lot of mistakes. We have wrecked areas in the Murray-Darling Basin like the Macquarie marshes and the Coorong. I do not think they will ever be the same again. Can't we at least learn from these sad stories and resolve to do better with Cape York Peninsula, starting with the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve? I urge the Queensland and federal governments to reject the strip mining proposal. Do it for Steve, do it for those rare fish, birds and plants, and above all do it for all those children and young people who want this area to be as beautiful in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years as it is today.

What you can do

If you are a Queensland resident, please sign the e-petition on the Parliamentary web-site (see text below), The petition is open until 17 May 2009. If you live outside of Queensland, please sign the petition on the Save Steve's Place. (www.savestevesplace.com) web site.

Queensland Parliamentary e-petition

The petition of the residents of the State of Queensland draws to the attention of the House that the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve (SIWR), a 135,000 hectare property in Queensland’s Cape York Peninsula, is being threatened by strip mining. The SIWR is a wetland conservation property and tribute to Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin, and is home to a set of three important spring fed wetlands which provide a critical water source to threatened habitat, provide permanent flow of water to the Wenlock River, and is home to rare and vulnerable plants and wildlife. Cape Alumina Pty Ltd has lodged mining lease applications which include approximately 12,300 hectares of the SIWR. Cape Alumina company documents indicate an intention to mine 50 plus million tons of bauxite over a 10 year period commencing 2010. The proposed area for mining on the SIWR contains the head waters of irreplaceable waterways and unique biodiversity which will not recover after mining operations are finished.

Your petitioners therefore request the House to ask the Minister for Mines and Energy to ensure that no mining applications are granted on any part of the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve (SIWR).

...
...
Article by Geoff Brown

Delfin Lend Lease, the developer of the ADI Site, is now promoting its new suburb. It has the appalling name of Jordan Springs (another generic Delfin project with Springs in the name).

Jordan Springs is the 230 ha area of bushland - the now critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland - found on the western (Penrith) side of the ADI Site. Check out the spin from Delfin http://jordansprings.com.au/

There should now be a big question mark over this development

There should now be a big question mark over this development with both the NSW and Australian Government's upgrading Cumberland Plain Woodland from Endangered to Critically Endangered. You would assume any development that proposed to clear over 200 ha (there is still another suburb to go at ADI and it is 130 ha) of critically endangered bushland would be struggling to get approval.

Penrith Council recently approved the first 6 ha subdivision prior to the critically endangered listing.

Penrith Council, Delfin, Peter Garrett

They need to be hammered about this issue and reminded they have an obligation to reject developments that threaten critically endangered vegetation. They can easily justify refusal under the Threatened Species Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Delfin have also got some kind of get out of jail free card from Peter Garrett whereby they don't have to refer their plans to him for assessment under the EPBC Act. This is appalling as any other proposal in Australia that threatens matters of National significance needs the approval of the Federal Environment Minister.

We are meeting with Garrett's adviser next week and will be raising plenty of issues with him about protecting CPW and the Western Sydney Priority Lands. Also the Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan which is a joint State and Federal Govt Plan.

Click picture for video.

The recent Auditor General's Report on the incompetence of the Victorian Government's wildlife statistics collection and maintenance mean that the Victorian government could not logically have the authority to make decisions about sustainable forestry where local fauna habitat is affected, in the opinion of this candobetter.org writer and environmental sociologist. Because of this, it seems to me that Environment East Gippsland has clearly won its case in advance. It will take years, decades, maybe half a century for the Victorian government to repair its statistical collection. But will the judges be aware of just how bad the government's information is? We have to make sure that they do by making this information so well-known that it cannot be avoided. So please pass the link to the Auditor General's report around.

Brown Mountain Court Case

Environment East Gippsland's (EEG) lawyers are working overtime getting the case and expert witness reports prepared for the court case which starts in just over 4 weeks. It will be at the Sale County Court (Supreme Court does regional hearing). EEG people have been offered some accomodation but could probably use more.

The case could blow out to over the two weeks set aside for it. The forest-related Acts can be complex so loads of paperwork needs to generated. EEG volunteers are still flat chat trying to raise more funds to ensure they can cover the immediate costs. Meanwhile Brown Mountain’s wildlife is getting around the old growth forests in peace. Volunteers are still maintaining spy cameras trying to get more critters on film.

Arrests of Wildlife Warriors

The summer season for protesting by our very own Avatars in old growth logging areas is happening with 5-6 brave and ethical people arrested on summons so far. The forests being targeted have been up in the Bonang River headwaters on the Errinundra Plateau. Currently between 20-30 people at the
camp here in Goongerah. VicForests response is to say protesters have stopped important machinery from being used for fighting fires. This is untrue.

Could I recommend the film Avatar as an example of what our Wildlife and Forest Warriors in Australia are defending and the forces that seek to destroy it? Brown Mountain, as you can see from the photos, has amazing huge trees and is a different and beautiful world. Searching for economic growth through these limpid havens is like searching for Unobtainium. It is a gross act.

Rob Quantok will donate half profits from regional performance to EEG

The very kind and funny actor, Rod Quantock is holding his “Bugger the Polar Bears – this is serious” show at Warrandyte on Sat 20th Feb 7.30. Bless him!

Half the profits he raises will be donated to EEG to help with our costs. Tickets $30. Ph: Ingrid 9870 8378 for details. (will send more details soon).

Help with art-programs needed on website

To help EEG's marketing and fundraising they would love the help of someone who has a good grasp of Photoshop or other image programs – to put a hand and an old growth forest together on their website.

Editor's comment:

Did we all forget again this year to nominate Jill Redwood and Rod Qantok (along with Julianne Bell, Jill Quirk and Mary Drost) for the Australia Day awards? Try to remember next year. Maybe we should have our own awards.

Source of small picture with coat-hanger in teaser was http://new.savethecourt.org/content/womens-rights

I am frankly sick and tired of growth-promoters raising the spectre of “coercive population measures” whenever a suggestion is made that we must promote family planning or smaller families. Is there some sacred reason why fertility should not be limited if deemed necessary? In a world of 6.8 billion people going on 9 or 10 billion, or in any nation suffering from exponential population growth, there can be no “pro-creative” right.

This must not be confused with “reproductive” rights. Women should have the right not to have children. But they have no right, in the context of overshoot, to have as many children as they or their husbands want. The “right to choose” cannot be the right to abuse. Even the most jealously guarded right must be measured against equally fundamental rights, most especially the right of our species, and others, to live.

I have, at present, the "right" to drive a car. But I do not have a right to drive it over the speed limit. And it is society that establishes that limit, not me. Indeed, if society determines that there are too many people driving cars, it has the moral right to impose petroleum taxes, restrict parking permits and spaces, put tolls on highways and bridges and employ an assortment of other measures to discourage me from driving. I similarly have the right to go fishing, but I don't have the right to catch as many fish as I may like. In the face of shortages, we have come to accept that our collective right to achieve sustainability supersedes any individual “right”. The number of consumers who will compete for critically scarce resources is surely every bit as important as the number of people who go fishing and how many fish they catch. If there is a licence needed to fish, why should there not, in principle at least, be a licence required to inflict a child upon the rest of society? Am I advocating “coercion”? Absolutely. Coercion if necessary, but not necessarily coercion. Mutual coercion mutually agreed upon, if voluntary efforts, yet to be exhausted, prove ineffective. But would fertility controls represent the introduction of coercion where none presently exists? Absolutely not.

Let's get real. A great many women in the undeveloped world at least, are having children precisely because they are coerced. Coerced by husbands, priests and mullahs to have more than the number they want. Coerced by their cultural programming to give male wishes greater priority than their own. Coerced by their lack of access to birth control information, and by the denial of educational opportunities. This is where coercion makes itself most present. Not in China. Not by communist bureaucrats and law-makers. But by the dictates of domestic and religious patriarchal power.

And what of my rights? What about my right not to see my share of non-renewable resources diminished by the “personal” decision of the couple down the street to have an unnecessary child? Did they consult me about their decision to conceive another Canadian, an earth-trampling shopping machine who emits 23 metric tonnes of carbon each year, consumes 40,000 pounds of metals and minerals and accounts for over 150 pounds of curb side waste each day? Did they submit an application to the local planning authority or town council for a permit to stress the environment even further than it is being stressed? Why is their “right” to create more life considered more fundamental than our right to sustain the life that is already here? Why should the human population level of a country or a planet be subject to the whimsy and haphazard “personal” decisions of fertile individuals? Why must they replicate their own genes? Why are so many children forced to live in orphanages, foster homes and on the squalid streets of sprawling cities to fend for themselves while irrational ego-trippers generate more children just because they want to raise someone with the same pair of ears or eyes as they have? Children do not have to share your genes to share your love.

I wouldn't dream of telling anyone to have a child. So why would anyone tell me that I should move over for theirs? To paraphrase Hilary Clinton, it takes a whole ecosystem to raise a child, and as a charter member of it, I have the right to participate in the decisions that affect me. On an overloaded planet anybody's pregnancy is everybody's business. For every extra billion we grow in number, another 200 billion tonnes of Green House Gases are emitted, and to effectively reduce emissions, we must, among other things, reduce the number of emitters. Unfettered procreative rights are of little value on a dead planet. Beyond a certain point, parenthood is not a service but an imposition, not only upon humanity, but disproportionately upon the most disempowered and poorest part of it, the very people whom many Western feminists and human rights crusaders are most concerned with. How can an unsustainable population level enhance their rights? Can anyone seriously contend that the sum total of unplanned or unwanted pregnancies does not restrict personal autonomy more than the most intrusive family planning program? Or maintain that the absence of effective birth control is not the most coercive regime that women can suffer?

Just who is coercing whom?

Tim Murray, Quadra Island, BC

Photo by Jill Quirk

The material below comes from the preface of a new report, prepared by Dane Wood on behalf of the Canberra Environment and Sustainability Resource Centre for the ACT Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment. Available from: Canberra Environment and Sustainability Resource Centre, GPO Box 1875, Canberra 2601.

Risks associated with eradicating native plant and animal life

"This report collates recent existing data on the Australian Capital Territory’s biodiversity in order to analyse and scope the capacity of biodiversity in adapting to climate change and global warming. It intends to provide a report that will ultimately assist research and preparation for the ACT State of the Environment Report with the purpose of educating the Canberra and wider ACT communities on the value of biodiversity for the ‘bush capital’ and warning of the risks associated with eradicating native plant and animal life and the consequences related to this."

The data used for this study was drawn from a wide range of sources to ensure the topic was scoped sufficiently to provide accurate results regarding the Territory’s biodiversity and how successfully it has adapted to the changing climate. Statistics regarding flora, fauna, general biodiversity data and bushfire regeneration figures were drawn from the Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research (Australian National Botanic Gardens), the bushfire regeneration monitoring on Farrer Ridge report, the Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Molonglo Catchment Group, Ginninderra Catchment Group, Southern ACT Catchment Group, Countdown 2010 - Local and Regional Authorities and the Canberra Ornithological Group.

Collectively the information we have collected has provided us with sufficient data to produce a report that will inform the Office of the Commissioner of the scope, range and value of the region’s biodiversity within the overall context of climate change adaptation.

We found that in response to bushfires and controlled burning throughout the Australian Capital Territory, the area’s flora was quick to re-establish itself and was closely followed by the return of fauna. This is a positive sign in how the Territory’s biodiversity has adapted over the years to regenerate quickly and has tailored itself to not only suit the changing climate but slow the process of global warming through quick restoration of carbon sequestering flora. Also noticed was the positive impact on the environment by particular native species that have had the opportunity to adapt over millions of years when compared to the less suited domestic species such as cattle and sheep. Kangaroos in particular have proven to be the ideal species to help the natural environment revive and also assist in minimising the hazards which can lead to bushfires. There was sufficient additional literature to support the finding that biodiversity-rich environments not only regenerate faster, but can also play a part in preventing the spread of fire and control fires as a total system.

While the ACT is rich in biodiversity across the scope of flora and fauna, there is cause for concern from the long term perspective of preparation for climate change:

-- Of the 47 species of mammals found in the ACT, less than half are commonly found, with 57.45% of the total declared as uncommon, scarce, insufficiently known or endangered.

-- The reptile population returns similar statistics, with 59.32% of total species declared uncommon, scarce, rare or endangered.

-- Of the amphibians population, 58.82% are uncommon, scarce or endangered, and a further 2 species of amphibians have been declared extinct.

The effects of climate change on the region are expected to include:

-- higher temperatures
-- increased winds in summers months
-- drier average seasonal conditions
-- increased frequency of extreme weather events including storms
-- increased risk of bushfire

Given this, it is particularly relevant to examine the role of biodiversity in adapting to these conditions over time. After the 2003 bushfires the Farrer Ridge Landcare group undertook a study on the restoration of the landscape and found that native flora species recovered quickly. In response to this, there is a need for community education in the role of native species in gardens as a means of maintaining native habitat as the landscape undergoes the changes that will accompany the expected changes in climate.

Bushfire remains a crucial risk in the region. We found that an ecosystem containing a rich biodiversity recovered more quickly and provided greater ecosystem stability during the restoration period than an ecosystem which featured monoculture (such as the pine forests) or where biodiversity was lacking.

This report has concluded that as climate change progresses further, communities within the Australian Capital Territory will notice dramatic changes to the local climate. In order to address this, three key issues regarding the biodiversity of the ACT must be addressed. These are:

-- protecting and nurturing the diverse ecosystems around the ACT
-- better integration of the natural and human environments
-- closely following the 18 year plan set out in the ACT Climate Change Strategy 2007 – 2025.

These points if addressed properly will have a beneficial effect on the local ecosystems and biodiversity and will increase the capacity of our landscapes to adapt to the process of climate change over a period of years."

This is a report well worth reading: short, clear and showing a responsible, knowledgeable and positive regard for our indigenous animals.

"No apology"!

Is this "Newspeak" for a decision the Australian PM feels uncomfortable about?

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he makes "no apology" for believing in a "big Australia". he also said " I make absolutely no apology whatsoever for taking a hard line on illegal immigration to Australia."

But Mr Rudd should apologise !

Rudd is socially-engineering Australia's population growth

He presides over a massive rate of population growth which his government has engineered. He should apologise to the present population and also to the future population that will be so much worse off than we are now as the Australian environment inevitably declines . Australia's environment right now suffers from population overload. It's the number of us and the way we live, the way waterways are interfered with for human activities, the way natural habitat is taken over for human habitation, the impact on our environment of human wastes both domestic and industrial, mining extraction and agricultural..... the sheer scale of our activities !

Optimism without foundation may doom Australians

Rudd's optimism reported by the ABC at the growing population seems to be founded on no real data. It appears as rhetoric, no more than a declared belief. The serious concerns of continuing population growth expressed by Treasury Secretary Dr. Ken Henry - water availability , biodiversity welfare of wildlife are waved away by Rudd as mere "challenges" (in "Newspeak" challenge =problem)

Australia is the driest inhabited continent on Earth with thin fragile soils and relatively little arable land.
Australia's environmental indicators- climate,waterways,land and biodiversity indicate stress right now from increasing human impacts.

.......but Rudd has set his reckless course and will not be diverted.

He makes no apology.

State-sponsored human population growth is doing more harm to Australian wildlife and the environment than the dreaded cane toad!

(Illustration:Canetoad Anna B by Sheila N)

Anna Bligh's policies are turning the human population in Queensland into the equivalent of canetoads. Native habitat is being sacrificed to continuous development and humans are overwhelming indigenous species, just like the imported canetoad. We have far less excuse though, since we are able to control our population and we are supposed to be living in a democracy - not a developer-led dictatorship.

Canetoads

Cane toads, which produce large numbers of offspring, are colonising northern Australia at an increasingly rapid pace. Cane Toads are likely to colonise almost every habitat type before eventually moving further south.

In Australia it is officially recognised that the cane toad is a pest and an invasive species in many regions where it has been introduced. A particular concern is that its toxic skin kills many animals—native predators and otherwise—when ingested. The kinds of native animals that are most likely to be affected by toads are predators, like quolls (marsupial carnivores), large snakes, and goannas.

Humans just as out of control as toads, but with less excuse

Our iconic koalas, however, are under threat from a runaway human invasion! In fact, all native species have been impacted by the growth of human populations, and as koalas are competing with the same locations, they are losing out badly. This is not properly acknowledged officially; human development impact is being dealt with piecemeal, project by project, without reference to the total impact of total human development in the total koala habitat. This is either incompetent planning or a depraved policy to wipe out koalas by simply erasing their habitat in a patchwork approach.

(photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Southeast Queensland typically supports the highest densities of Koalas in the State, but rapid human population growth there is accompanied by loss of native vegetation and koala numbers are plummeting towards zero! A conservative estimate indicates a further loss of 23-25,000 ha of native vegetation, much of it koala habitat, in the next 20 years as human population burgeons. An upper estimate is 30-35,000 ha loss of native vegetation, further accelerating the decline of koala and other wildlife populations. Long before that, the koalas will all be gone!

The bulk of remaining koala habitat is legally unprotected

An estimated 80% of koala habitat has probably been destroyed since European settlement. Most of the habitat that is left is private land – almost none of it protected in law.

Extreme drought, ferocious bushfires and urban development could make koalas , extinct within seven years environmentalists are warning.

Erna Walraven, senior curator at Taronga Zoo, sees the koala as a flagship species , with the health of their populations serving as an indicator of the wider health of the wildlife of the bush, including bandicoots and wallabies.

Stress causes illness in koalas. Stress is another word for hardship. Stress is caused by loss of habitat and subsequent overcrowding. The majority of koalas in Queensland are believed to be infected with Koala retrovirus (or KoRV). This retrovirus can cause suppression of the immune system in koalas, leukaemia and lymphoma

The Queensland Government has announced it would protect 5.6 hectares of state-owned koala habitat at Alexandra Hills

Govt land handover for koalas a "shocking joke"

(Photo source: http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/about_the_epa/public_reporting/epa_bulletin/issue_48_june_2009/index.html)

State Climate Change Minister Kate Jones said the land, located on Windemere Road and of high commercial value, would be handed over to Redland City Council.

Honorable as this handover is considering the land’s commercial value, it is a drop in the ocean. The solution needs a more holistic approach. In fact there should be no more development in the vulnerable area at all.

We should be looking, not at what Minister Jones is 'sparing' but at what she is allowing to be taken and destroyed.

Koalas like to move about, and being surrounded by roads and developments, saving 5.6ha of key habitat will have little effect ultimately on saving the species.

The small Koala populations that remain cut off in fragmented areas of bushland are at great risk of localised extinction because a single fire may wipe out an entire habitat. Bushfires are extremely common in the summer months. Below habitat threshold points, a rapid decline in koala occupancy is likely. Fences, roads and cleared land can all create barriers to koala movement. These factors alter population dynamics, impede gene flow, and limit the ability for populations to recover from insult and depletion.

Without interlinking and continuous wildlife corridors and crossings, habitats remain fragmented.

According to Australian Koala Foundation chief executive officer Deborah Tabart, 25,000 koalas have died from dog attacks, cars and disease in the last 10 years in South East Queensland and that's because leaders have failed to plan effectively which land should be developed.

South East Queensland’s excessive population growth is no doubt stimulating economic growth - albeit debt-funded. Our leaders worship growth, but they fail to appreciate that koalas and other animals have indigenous rights and that to treat them in this way is depraved. Unless there is a stop to developments and housing and cap on human population numbers, the Bligh government’s greed will destroy Queensland’s natural wealth, including its biodiversity, and create a crowded, sterile and cruel wasteland!

Is Premier Anna Bligh happy to create, manipulate and profit from a human population explosion at the expense of wildlife habitat and to willingly make human invasions a greater threat to Queensland than those of the unwitting cane toad?

Any introduced species, with unchecked population growth, can become a “pest” species! The Economy should not over-ride our moral and ethical duty to protect the species that have a rightful existence in their land and whose survival dignifies our own.

#WhatYouCanDo" id="WhatYouCanDo">What you can do

Contact Premier Anna Bligh and let her know how you object to her Government making the plight of our endangered koala worse. Please send us any copies of correspondence to or from the Premier.

Her contact details are:

South Brisbane Electoral Office

E-mail: South.Brisbane[AT]parliament.qld.gov.au

Phone : (07) 3255 3615
Fax : (07) 3255 3627

Suite 1/90 Vulture Street
West End 4101 Qld

PO Box 5822
West End Qld 4101

Ministerial Office

E-mail : premier[AT]ministerial.qld.gov.au

Phone : (07) 3224 4500
Fax : (07) 3221 3631

Level 15 Executive Building
100 George Street
Brisbane Qld 4000

PO Box 15185
City East QLD 4002

It seems unlikely that Environment East Gippsland stands to wear enormous costs after all. Judge Jack Forrest seems to be taking the laws he is expected to hear the case in relation to very seriously. Those laws are all about preserving biodiversity.

Here is how he has worded a relevant part of the jugement:

"Third, VicForests correctly says that any undertaking as to damages which may be given by EEG is in effect close to meaningless. The estimate of EEG's assets vary between $10,000 and $45,000. If it is unsuccessful in the calim, presumably it will, at least, have out of pocket legal expenses, and I assume there will be no money available to satisfy the undertaking as to damages. However, this is a public interest piece of litigation against a State corporation and I bear in mind that the preservation of endangered native fauna is a paramount consideration in the statutory provisions and documents I have referred to.

The Judge seems to be saying that an injunction would be appropriate. He has, however, allowed VicForests until Thursday to prove what their loss might be if there is just a temporary injunction and not a permanent stop to logging. A final comment: Since there has been a seven month moratorium for that area up until recently, while government biologists carried out surveys to confirm EEG's findings, it would be hard for VicForests to claim sudden large losses if they were prevented from logging for another few months.

Brown Mountain - Historic win for Victorian forests hangs on funding indemnity

Monday 14th September

Ed: Shakespeare wrote that the quality of mercy is not strained but falls from heaven like the rain ...
Not much rain and not much justice in Victoria, if you don't have money...
BUT there is still hope and this case is too important to lose:

In an historic win for an environment group, the Victorian Supreme Court today decided it is appropriate to grant an injunction restraining government logging monopoly VicForests from logging two areas of forest on Brown Mountain in East Gippsland.

"This is the first time a court order has been made to prevent the destruction of old growth forests in Victoria until a trial about the lawfulness of the logging is completed", said Jill Redwood, coordinator of Environment East Gippsland, the group that took the extraordinary court action.

Money required to bring our own government to justice

"The only reason the injunction wasn't granted today is that VicForests has asked the Court to order EEG to provide a large amount of money to secure its undertaking to pay any damages which flow to VicForests from the granting of the injunction. This will be argued in court on Thursday," said Ms Redwood.

Click here to find how to send money to EEG to help

"After we discovered a rare Long-footed Potoroo in the area a few weeks ago, VicForests still insisted that it would log the area immediately. We had to rush this to court to stop them," said Ms Redwood.

In his judgment, Justice Forrest referred to photographs of logging, and said they "demonstrate the apparent total obliteration of the area of native forest as a result of logging and the subsequent burning off. To put it bluntly, once the logging is carried out and the native habitat destroyed, then it cannot be reinstated or repaired in anything but the very, very long term."

Of course, that does not mean that anyone would then be able to repair it, any more than we have repaired the forest where our cities now stand. Once that forest is gone, to all intents and purposes, it is gone forever - and the species within it never to regenerate.

“If an injunction is granted on Thursday, it will last until we go to trial to argue about whether logging this old growth forest and the effects on its wildlife is lawful."

“Brown Mountain's forests have been the litmus test for the state government's commitment to forest conservation since 1989, when they were first declared National Estate by the Commonwealth Government but clearfelled by the State Government", said Ms Redwood.

It should be the government upholding the law to protect our wildlife, not fighting against it

"When will the Brumby Government get the message? It should be the government upholding the law to protect our wildlife, not fighting against it."

The endangered wildlife identified around Brown Mountain Creek includes the Sooty Owl, Long-footed Potoroo and Orbost Spiny Crayfish as well as the sensitive Greater Glider and Yellow-bellied Gliders.

The matter returns to Court before Justice Forrest on Thursday 17 September 2009.

People with guts also an endangered species which needs protection

Please help Jill Redwood and the EEG group. People with guts in Victoria are almost as rare as the long-footed potoroo. Let's help to make brave people prepared to fight for justice flourish too!

Anyone who has been in awe at the beauty of nature, its perfection of form and the delights it brings to the heart, the soothing of 21st century stress and upliftment of the soul would most likely have had the same response that I had while observing outrageously loud and wrecklessly fast racing cars shatter the silence as they ripped through the most pristine rainforests of Australia ....

See also: "After six days of anti-Rally protestor vilification, rock throwing allegations admitted to be false" of 11 Sep 09

Originally published

9 Sep 09.

On Saturday September 5, 2009 I found myself sitting on damp rainforest soil on Urliup Drive, Dulguigan, a riot policeman stationed to guard me just 3 metres away, standing on the road itself as we waited for the first of 30 race cars in the World Rally Championship for this year. It had been a total of five arduous months campaigning to stop this damn rally - all to no avail since it was ushered through by the NSW Rees government, given special treatment, all environmental laws were overridden and no development application was required. Nor would there be any liability for Repco if any deaths of drivers/spectators occurred.

I had arrived early to help my friend who lives on the road put up banners as there were very few protesters on this stage. We had been putting up the posters for hours as every time we'd put one up, the riot squad would come along and tell us why that was not a good position so we'd keep looking. In the end they were not very visible as the police themselves stood in front of some of them.

My emotions were mixed - how would I react? Would a secret love of fast cars emerge even though in my heart I knew this was the wrong place? Or would I go into meltdown worrying about what the animals who lived in this pristine rainforest might be feeling?

I had hoped to be alone as I sensed this might be an emotional experience for me, but the police were certain that we five protestors (who incidentally were mainly all over 50 years of age, grey-haired, professionals, not dirty hippies from Nimbin, as we are constantly being accused of being) would be hurling ourselves in front of the vehicles travelling 160kph on this extremely narrow, winding, precipitous road with ravines falling away to one side.

Many hours had passed as various service vehicles had passed through, all going quite fast and stirring up the dusty road which had been specially graded for the event. There were 'sweeper' vehicles that made sure no branches or rocks had been placed there by protesters, police, security, the sirens to 'scare animals away', approximately eight riot police and highway patrol.

The last and most hilarious vehicle to come through were the 'koala spotters' which consisted of two individuals standing on the back of a ute with their heads looking skyward at the tall trees above, supposedly looking for koalas. Koalas are extremely difficult to detect especially in a moving vehicle, and impossible unless you are experienced, especially in this dense rainforest. How on earth they were supposed to have time to stand at the foot of the tree and guard them or erect fences around the tree to contain them, when the first cars were coming in about 10 minutes was a mystery to me. And what about koalas who were already on the ground?

Repco had promised that creeks would have barriers to protect the pristine waters should one of the cars end up in the creek but none were erected either on this stage or other stages that I could see. They were supposed to be erected (so we were told at a Residents Meeting by Repco several days prior). They also promised wildlife carers would assist in the case of injured animals, but that was another lie - none of the wildlife carers wanted to have anything to do with this rally, on principle. It was bad enough that this was a busy time of year for them without having more animals injured by an unnecessary, disrespectful car rally foisted on them, all without financial compensation of course.

As I sat there contemplating how the animals might be feeling at the radical increase in traffic on a normally rarely used road which would by now have 100-200 rally supporters staked at various sections by the road, I tried to engage the riot policeman in normal conversation but his only comment was 'My job is to make sure that you stay there and not come onto this road. I'm here to protect you, even though you say you won't come onto the road.'

"This is so boring" I said to him. "We could right now all be walking through this amazing rainforest, in awe of the trees and the animals. Instead we are sitting here waiting interminably for the racing cars which will be gone in a blink of an eye followed by a trail of dust that will obscure this idyllic view we have right now...." He continued to chew gum and ignore my comment. It seemed very hard to penetrate the exterior of this robot-like human. What was he thinking? Did he like his job?

The owner of this property and 3 fellow protesters were further down, similarly guarded by one riot policeman each. We were the only protesters on this stage and, with the exception of one young gardener in his late 20s, were all over 50 years of age and professionals - hardly the stereotyped Nimbin hippies who didn't have a job or a life and hardly the types to hurl ourselves in front of cars or hurl boulders at the race cars. Still the riot police had told me several days before that they were brought to this area to 'stop the protesters from destroying the road' and they still had it in their mind that this is what our intention was. Furthermore, the day before two stages had been stopped by protesters at Byrrill Creek and the police were very nervous that protesters might try something at the other stages, such as hurling our bodies in front of racing cars. That would make world headlines and draw negative attention to this rally - the last thing they wanted.

Suddenly I heard the most terrifyingly loud sound from around the mountain that filled my heart with terror. The car was only seconds away now and I steeled myself for what felt like World War III. By the time it was level with where we were I found myself involuntarily screaming at the top of my lungs "NO!!!!" but the driver ignored me and flew by leaving me with my mouth agape in horror and shock barely able to enunciate the words 'You're MAD!! Completely INSANE!" I was not enjoying this to put it mildly. In fact I began to sob uncontrollably in spite of the fact that the cop was there, protecting me. As I slowly regained control I once again tried to engage the cop:

"This is SO WRONG! To have an event like this in this beautiful rainforest. What about the animals? How do they feel? Doesn't anyone even care?" The clouds of dust blanketed every square centimeter of flora and fauna for some distance, obscuring what was previously paradise. Once again I asked him to please step off the road as it was dangerous for him to be there and invited him to come higher up onto the bank closer to where I was but he refused. "No I'm staying right here and if you move I will follow wherever you go to make sure you don't go on the road."

Minutes later the second car came, in much the same way, outrageously loud and fast. Once again I began screaming and sobbing "Please forgive them they don't know what they are doing" - I felt the etheric and energetic fields of this area being shattered, fractured and it distressed me profoundly. It felt like a total violation of everything that is sacred, pure, beautiful. To put it mildly, it was one of the worst experiences of my life. I was starting to sink into a bottomless pit of pain and despair when the third car came through. It was then I began to realise that I was suffering from a total emotional breakdown. I found myself barely able to move as I fell onto the nearest tree trunk and put my arms around it saying over and over "I'm sorry, sorry, sorry, so sorry" trying desperately to tell this beautiful Earth that I love so much the pain I was feeling.

The policeman had no idea how to deal with anyone in trauma but I could feel that I needed to get away from here as soon as possible but was unable to help myself. Luckily my friends came by (they were bored and angry) and helped me by picking me up and letting me lean on them as I staggered through the forest back to the house, riot cop in tow. Every time another car went by I would fall to the ground, prostate, overwhelmed with grief. Eventually I made it back to the house where I collapsed.

A bit later I picked up the phone and called Garry Connelly, the Manager of Repco Rally Australia and told him about the effect his rally was having on me. He said "I'm sorry you don't like rallying, most people do". I disputed that saying no public consultation had taken place which he tried to defend saying that 400 people living on the stages had been interviewed, even though we have never seen this social study. I asked him to please take this rally somewhere else away from World Heritage areas, national parks, koala colonies and endangered species to a desert or a racetrack. He replied that there was just as much biodiversity in a desert as here and that a racetrack would not be a rally anymore. Besides there was a rally here before in this area 40 years ago. I reminded him that times have changed and people are a bit more environmentally conscious these days. He pointed to a 700+ page ecological report (which was not worth the paper it was written on as it was surveyed in autumn not breeding season and was only for 1 year not 10-20 years) and said that Repco was environmentally friendly. I told him that rallying was NOT eco-tourism and in fact was an assault on our environment - even a 2 yr old can see that! But Connelly couldn't as he suffers from extreme myopia and talking to him is an exercise in futility.

After the stage ended, the riot policeman who was guarding me came to the house to see if I was OK and get my details. He said "Are you OK?" which I thought was pretty nice of him and I could tell by the look on his face that it was a sincere question. I looked into his eyes and said "No, I'm not all right! I'll never be all right until this rally goes somewhere else! I feel like I have been violated, raped. I love this forest, and all the creatures, even the insects and it hurts me to see man at war with nature." He said "I can see that". WOW! He meant it, he really could see it! His face had softened and behind the hard exterior was a real human being. Perhaps he was just very worried that I would jump onto the road and he would lose his job and now he saw that I didn't he could relax and be real. I hoped that I had somehow opened his mind to another way of perceiving this world and that he would remember me.

My friend drove me home where I again collapsed. Meanwhile the two residents who were protesting checked the condition of their road surface. A week earlier it had been beautifully graded by council who decided, serendipitously that after 8 years it was 'due' for an upgrade. And this is what they found - rubble and pitted and gravel strewn everywhere, car tyres were within 1 cm of the ravines falling steeply away to the side.

Never again could I look at a rally video and not remember this experience of intense connectedness with the web of life and feeling the pain all over again. How I wish everyone on the planet could love and respect this wondrous earth! If they don't they don't deserve to live here. Let them go live on the moon until such time as they realise just how lucky we are because this earth is dying and soon it will be too late to turn it around.

Rallies are NO solution to the planetary crises facing us now. They only solidify the perception that our world is here for us to use in any way we want for our own pleasure and to hell with everything else!

Anthropocentrism or Biocentrism - you choose.

See also: "After six days of anti-Rally protestor vilification, rock throwing allegations admitted to be false" of 11 Sep 09

For those in the Tweed/Kyogle area, please participate in the sociological survey found at http://www.tweedecho.com.au. Community feedback will be used to try and stop further rallies in this area so it is very important to take a few minutes to fill it out. Thank you.

The Discovery of Honey, painting by Piero di Cosimo, taking the happy social connotations of honey to the mythical plane.

According to the film, The Vanishing of Bees, there are 90 food crops dependent on bee pollination. If we lost bees, rice, corn, and wheat would continue to be available, but there would be little fruit or vegetables.

Bees most common insect pollinators

Here the film includes other insect pollinators as well as bees - such as flower wasps: "If we want a diet that is more than gruel, we need insect pollinators."

Emotionalism and Rationalism

In "Pollination and Reproductive Behavior of Crop Plants" by Dr. C Kameswara Rao of the Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, Bangalore, India, Dr Rao says, "Biotic pollen vectors such as honey bees and bumble bees and some others have an important role in sustainable agriculture, but that has been exaggerated, romanticized and emotionalized by expansive claims by the environmentalists."

But what are we humans, if not emotional, and what is life to us, if not an emotional experience? Without emotions there is no concentration and no learning. Without emotions there is no capacity to imagine what we might lose.

Garden of Eden

To highlight the shallowness of confining discussion to human survival prospects alone with a severely depleted and dumbed-down natural ecosystem, consider how it makes you feel to contemplate the myth of the Garden of Eden without the food trees and flowers and almost devoid of wild birds and animals - for all of the other creatures on earth depend on a natural environment which relies heavily on pollination. Agribusiness and genetic plant engineering aren't going to look after them. To the contrary!

Without the bee

Without the bee, it would be as if we had all been banished from the garden of Eden, a notion which gives pause.

Insecticides and Colony Collapse Disorder

See also "From Watchdog to Lapdog: An Insider's History of the EPA"
The name which has been given to the problem of bee colonies dying off is "Colony Collapse Disorder - CCD".

The blog associated with the film implicates pesticides in this awful problem, notably one from Bayer’s CropScience division, Clothiantin, with the trade name Poncho® among others.

The blog states:

"BAYER are the last remaining major global brand still producing and distributing this vile pesticide even though it is proven that farmers can Banned in Europe, this European company sell this primarily to the poorest countries in the world – including to many farmers in India where they dominate the pesticides market.

We believe that this is wrong and that BAYER should live up to their responsibilities and support a global ban rather than fight it. 14 years ago, they also pledged to remove some of the most toxic pesticides from the Indian market. And they still have not yet done that!"

Maryam Heinan writes,

"Bayer makes baby aspirins (which are supposedly bad for infants) and also gives headaches to bees.

Bayer has global sales of $45 billion and owns a subsidiary called Bayer CropScience AG that manufactures herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides as well as treated seeds. CropScience alone does $8.8 billion in global sales that is about 20% of Bayer’s business.

Poncho and Gaucho are some of the trade names that have caused strife to the bees.

The EPA in a fact sheet issued 5/31/2003 has described Bayer’s Clothiantin, one of who’s trade names is Poncho® a pesticide from Bayer’s CropScience division, as follows: “ Poncho® is highly toxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis (LD50 > 0.0439 µg/bee). It has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of Poncho® residues in nectar and pollen. In honeybees, the effects of this toxic chronic exposure may include lethal and/or sub-lethal effects in the larvae and reproductive effects in the queen.”

In May 2008 Germany banned the use of Poncho® when German beekeepers reported loosing over 50% of their hives after a Poncho® application was linked to the deaths of millions of bees in the Baden-Württemberg region. Bayer responded that the toxic effect was an isolated incident caused by an “extremely rare” application error. So Poncho® is banned in Germany where Bayer was founded in 1863 and has its global headquarters. After the “extremely rare” application error people started to link Poncho®with Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).

So why does the EPA still allow the use of this insecticide in the US even though they described it in 2003 as “highly toxic to honeybees”? And why does the EPA still allow the use of this insecticide when its use has been banned in Germany where Bayer was founded 146 years ago, and has its global headquarters?

Because this country doesn’t adhere to the Precautionary Principle. In other countries when there is a slight risk they err on the side of caution. Not in America. Money and Greed rules."

See also :
"Trouble with bees", ABC Radio National's Background Briefing of 29 Jul 07, including transcript and link to 22Mb MP3 file.
A typically excellent documentary from the Background Briefing team. Much of it describes the insane US agricultural which is dependent, for pollination, on mobile bee colonies which are transported in trucks backwards and forwards across the US.