Re: landclearing - and the future of birds in nsw

Subject: Re: landclearing - and the future of birds in nsw
From: "Carmel Flint" <>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:30:03 +1100
If you look at the assessment methodology you will find that 'highly 
modified' vegetation (ie paddock trees) has the least protection.  At 
the various workshops I have been to in regard to this matter 
conducted by agency staff, they have made it very clear that paddock 
trees will be the element most easily cleared under the Regulation 
and associated documents.

In these matters, it is often dangerous to work off drafts and other 
things, because the final documents often do not reflect them.

On 10 Dec 2004 at 10:09,  wrote:

> I would like to point out that the views I am expressing are solely 
> mine. 
> I do, however, have an advantage in that I am sitting in a work unit 
> that has had a great deal of input into the process and, as such, 
> I've seen much of this develop - warts and all. I have only been 
> involved indirectly (providing advice to minimise the chances of 
> Regent Honeyeaters falling through the gaps - unfortunately mobile 
> species such as Regent Honeyeaters do not neatly fall into the models 
> etc that are being created) but my colleagues have been working 
> extremely hard to ensure that conservation issues, notably those 
> concerning threatened species, are at the fore in any considerations.
> As I stated in my original e-mail, I suggest that those interested in 
> this have a look at everything that is available and go from there. 
> I have formed an opinion based on the documents circulated to me, 
> many not public as they are working documents, and discussions within 
> my workplace with those working within the process as it is being 
> developed.
> Again I stress these are my views only (read the disclaimer below!!). 
> I'm not in the business of trying to persuade anyone to adopt my 
> line of thinking, but to develop their own opinion!
> Greg wrote "The issue of trade-offs (or off-sets) was raised then and 
> scattered old-growth habitat trees, providing habitat for hollow 
> nesters but also the nests of the Black-necked Stork, Osprey, 
> Whistling Kite, Brahminy Kite etc., were going to be traded for areas 
> of planted new trees."
> It would be criminal if this were to happen. There is a very strong 
> push in western NSW to ensure that clearing of grossly disturbed 
> habitats (ie paddock trees) is given the red light because of their 
> conservation value. Do I assume that Greg's wording were indicates 
> that this is also not going to be the case on the northern rivers?
> Cheers
> David Geering
> Regent Honeyeater Recovery Coordinator
> Department of Environment & Conservation
> P.O. Box 2111
> Dubbo NSW 2830
> Ph: 02 6883 5335 or Freecall 1800 621 056
> Fax: 02 6884 9382
> This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
> confidential information. 
> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and 
> then delete the message. Views expressed in this message may be those 
> of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of the 
> NSW Department of Environment and Conservation.

Birding-Aus is now on the Web at
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message 'unsubscribe
birding-aus' (no quotes, no Subject line)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU