>I think David Geering is right that it won't lead to many extinctions in
>the next fifty years or so, it will lead to fragmented populations, massive
>numbers of local extinctions and an enormous endangered species list.
I still think it is very optimestic assessment of the situation. Global
weather change caused by carbondioxide buildup and land clearing is a
letheral combination to birds and other forms of life . The extinction rate
is not a linear curve but exponential.
>Unfortunatley the Queensland Tree Clearing Guidelines for Leasehold land
>were negotiated by two departments (Natural Resources, and Environment)
>with wide community consultation. The short of it is that the guidelines
are an environmental disaster and changing them will be harder than starting
>from scratch was.
It would be better to start again - agree.
>Landcare is about Community Natural Resource Management. It can cover
>everything from Integrated Catchment Management, Bush Regeneration, Urban
>plantings, and sustainable primary production. NHT funds are allocated to
>both landcare and bushcare aswell as coastcare and other areas. The funding
>formulas may change but you won't see all funding allocated to Bushcare
>alone. Landcare funding is not given for clearing of vegetation It can be
>spent on significant conservation initiatives like fencing remnant blocks
>and creklines etc, though often it is spent on projects of duius
>conservation significance. Join your local Landcare group and see that it
>spends its funds on conservation, not for bolstering of productivity.
Yes, but I see a paradox in the tree planting scheme and having buldozers
clearing masive areas at the same time. I am looking at a more cost
effective solution-let the remaining trees stand. I am looking at Qld at
present not the other states.
>I should think that lease holders could find reason for their leases to be
>renewed and generally leases are renewed. A cultural shift would be
>required to change this. Perhaps it is coming, but right wing governments
>seem to be pushing the other way, i.e for conversion of leasehold to
>freehold, for extinguishment of co-existence (ie native title), etc.
The danger here is that occupiers of leasehold land may quickly come to
realise that forested leases will not be renewed and this gives them an
added incentive to clear, in order to retain the lease.
A major issue and care must be taken, agree, but there are already
conditions on leasehold and a clearing permit must be granted by DNR. Of
course no clearing permits should be issued especially when the time
approaches for renewal. I was mainly discussing leaseholds on State Forests
land. However my 7 point plan does address the main issue about incentives.
The best incentive for a farmer would be that he/she get a reasonable price
for the products. World prices on primary produce have been falling during
the last 20 years!
Murray Lord's story:
That strikes me as a not unreasonable conclusion to reach in the
circumstances, given that he effectively had to bear the entire financial
burden resulting from other people's decisions to clear other land. Too
often people advocating change to land management regimes forget that what
they suggest is for a small sector of society to bear the cost when
everyone shares the benefit.
I guess I could paraphrase this by saying "we're never going to solve this
issue on birding-aus"!
If not on aus-birding where can it be resolved? Governments are not on our side.
I have no time for property speculators, it is the most evil activity there
exists. My proposal of a 100% capital gain on land/property speculation
would have removed any incentives to clear land for subdivision. No jobs are
created and folkd earn money without doing any work.
>Radical? The Corporate sector may say so. But surely chain clearing
>thousands of hectares, clearing forests, and poisoning water ways is
>radical, not speaking out against such practices.
Niels Poul Dreyer
10/35-37 Denman Camp Road
Scarness, Qld 4655