Mugga Zoo site as nature reserve?

["martin butterfield" <>]

Peter
I generally agree with your and Julian's thoughts, but the problem with a "no-grazing clause" is that it could be satisifed by chucking McMansions all over it!  A 'no development' clause is what is needed!

Martin

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Peter Ormay <> wrote:

I agree with Julian that the ground flora appears to be more complex and if roos have been excluded for some time it would be a good opportunity to study the effect of roo grazing.  It is good 'Yellow Box Red Gum Grassy Woodland' and as such lessees are not allowed to remove timber or super it, only graze it. However grazing itself can change the species composition because stock like some species better than others and tend to eliminate them leave less palatable plants and weeds. The area could easily become weed infested if weeds are present or if stock are brought in from weedy paddocks.

The area would make an excellent addition to Callum Brae as it has a different structure and possibly a differect species composition.

I think a new property management agreement is drawn up in the ACT if it is considered advisable to do so when a property changes hands.

I suggest that COG contact CALM and make something like following recommendation.

Recommendation
1) that a vegetation survey be carried out.

2) that the area be considered for adding to Callum Brae reserve.

3) that if it is not added to Callum Brae reserve then a 'no grazing' clause be considered on all or part, to protect plant diversity (and vegetation structure?).

Note:-
If grazing is excluded then hazard reduction burning may be required. However native plants in the ACT are adapted to fire as they have survived fires like the 2003 fire and gentler fires before.  They may take a year or two to show up.

Peter