It is a serious concern when one of the wealthiest per capita
jurisdictions in the world is simply not sustaining its biodiversity.
In reponse to Chris Davey's request, here are some suggestions for the
COG committee and members to consider:
1. If not already done, seek membership for a COG representative or
Conservation Council representative on the ACT Bushfire Council. Link,
which includes minutes of the meetings, is:
http://www.esa.act.gov.au/ESAWebsite/content_rfs/act_bushfire_council/act_bushfire_council.html
2. Rather than be on the defensive as each Government act or operation
occurs, develop specific, measurable, positive proposals for submission
to the ACT Government. The proposals would seek to gain specific
Government support for, for example, the following: the area of reserved
woodland for Brown Treecreepers, the amount of acacia, type and
distribution of acacia seeds needed to support Superb Parrot (possible
honours project here). I understand that a lot of this kind of work is
already being done by conservation organisations in the ACT and the
question here would be whether there are specific gaps which COG could
address.
3. When the Government does take, or supports, an unpopular action which
we know is good for birds, put out an official COG press release to
support them. An example might supporting kangaroo culls to prevent
overgrazing of grasslands and to maintain biodiversity. I know this will
be unpopular with some members but Governments routinely deal with
unpopular actions and appreciate public support when they do so.
4. Support a grant to develop an ACT urban tree hollow plan. Could be a
good honours or masters project. Issues to address might be:
* what would be a useful set of targets for hollows (number, hollow
designs to exclude pests, hollow designs for important taraget
species) mix of natural, improved natural and artificial hollows)
in the urban areas; take into account impact on ferals (eg
starlings). Trees with hollows by definition are generally
shedding branches and have some internal decay In areas where
there is human traffic they are a risk that need to be managed;
therefore include a process for risk assessment; practical steps
and timetable to achieve target urban hollows
* trees with hollows may or may not be a significant fire risk;
therefore include a process for fire risk assessment
* trees with hollows or overhanging branches may need pruning but
the pruning may be done in such a way that hollows are preserved
or encouraged; therefore develop pruning protocols.
* options for seeking home owners participation (aim: a hollow in
every backyard?)
* project should include estimates of establishment and maintenance.
Would be expensive
5. Offer to provide talks to local volunteer brigades with a view to
building bridges and discussing ways that control burns can be handled
both to reduce fuel and to maintain biodiversity. For example, control
burns can be done in such as way that mature trees survive; and so that
patches of shrubs or priority plants survive. 'Patchiness' of control
burns is also an important consideration.
6. Seek to include requirements for knowledge about biodiversity in
Government tendering processes that have the potential for having an
effect on biodiversity. The aim would be to ensure that contractors and
subbies know what they are doing as they are doing it.
Con
Chris Davey wrote:
I read with much interest Mark’s concerns on the vanishing small
patches of vegetation and the pruning of trees due to the response to
the 2003 bushfire, the in-fill program and drought. I also note Mark’s
final comment ‘Are we as a group going to sit back and watch all this
happen before our eyes or is there more that COG can do?’.
COG is very active in the area of conservation issues within the ACT,
for instance we are awaiting replies from three letters to various
Ministers at present. From my short experience on the COG Committee it
has become obvious to me that letter writing to the appropriate
Departments is all very well but the letters go nowhere if they
contain ‘motherhood’ statements for instance decrying the loss of
‘bush’ within the Bush Capital. Yet another letter to appropriate
authorities may make us feel good but…….. Letters only work if they
contain hard data and persistent follow-up.
As a responsible organisation specifically interested in birds and
their habitats we therefore need data to demonstrate the effects of
pruning, clearing etc on the cities bird life but at the same time
this effect needs to be isolated from the effects of drought. An
obvious source of these data would be the Garden Bird Survey but how
do we identify the drought effects? We could identify those areas that
have little vegetation and compare with areas that are well vegetated
but unfortunately there are very few contributors from the new suburbs
of Gungahlin and Tuggeranong with the smaller gardens and less vegetation.
A possible way forward would be for COG to support a project that
examines the effects of pruning and tree removal on the avifauna of
the area or to examine the difference in species abundance between
those older well vegetated suburbs and the newer, suburbs with small
gardens.
Any other suggestions?
Chris
24 Bardsley Place
Holt
ACT 2615
Tel: 02-62546324
*******************************************************************************************************
This is the email announcement and discussion list of the Canberra
Ornithologists Group.
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>
List-Subscribe: <>
List archive: <http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/canberrabirds>
List manager: David McDonald, email
<>
|
