|
Alan
I'm sorry but I don't quite get your point. But
then maybe I wasn't clear in alluding to the dilemma in the first
instance.
We are talking about a reasonable-sized tract
of private land sold to a developer a few years ago. The development has grown
steadily to the point where there is now only a couple of hectares of bushland
completely surrounded by housing and bordered on two sides by major roads (one
recently opened and the site of 100% of the road kill).
I understand the problems faced with attempted
re-location and the population levelling effect once you remove the population
to another area.
But from my narrow focus on the issue, given that
in a few months there will be no bushland save a narrow strip of parkland,
relocation should be attempted as an alternative to having them killed on roads
or by domestic animals or whatever. On Friday evening at 8pm I saw a female with
joey on the front lawn of a neighbouring property, some 500metres from the
nearest bushland.
From my research there seems to be no onus placed
on developers save allocating 18% to parkland which at best serves as a
playground for children and habitat to our good friends the Magpies, Currawongs,
Crows, Noisy Miners etc.
As Peter Crow pointed out in an earlier reply
- I heard the comment the other day
its illegal to kill a Koala but not
illegal to destroy its habitat so it
starves to death.
I am as guilty as anyone in this situation living
in an adjoining development that once was bushland - however seeing the plight
of these animals and taking note of the councils and developers attitude - I
feel the need to at least raise this issue.
Thanks again for your reply.
Cheers
Peter
| 