Ian's points are of course valid and I don't mean to disrespect him or
them. However I think we need to be cautious about importing too
uncritically models from elsewhere which were designed in different
situations. For instance Banrock works because the commercial part of
it - winery, restaurant etc - is on the bank, high above the floodplain
and river. Access to the wetlands involves a not inconsiderable walk
down (and back up) the slope; my observation has been that only a small
percentage of the visitors are interested enough in the wetlands to
make the trek, so they put money into it (via the winery) without
disturbing it unduly.
Another model which has been strongly mooted for Jerra is the London
Wetlands. I have no direct experience of it, but it is clearly a
remarkable achievement. However, an important part of it involves
pinioned exotic species and the opportunity to view them at close range
with little effort, so the relevance to us again is limited.
One reason for this is that Jerra is a nature reserve, which implies -
or certainly should imply - certain restrictions and makes some uses
inappropriate in that setting. I have no issues with an
education/interpretation centre - indeed it should be part of any
reserve in an ideal world - but that's a very different thing from the
proposals we read this morning, and on previous recent occasions when
Ms Beebey has run this same story. A nature reserve, and especially a
small wetland, is not a place for people to run or cycle for exercise,
or for restaurants. Bear in mind that most of the reserve area is
Wildlife Refuge Zone or Refuge Buffer Zone, where general access or
development will presumably still not be allowed. Much of the rest is
wetland, leaving very little space for development - and all of it
adjacent to wetland habitat.
While I for one would certainly like to see the sewage pond complex
incorporated into the reserve, there are obvious historical reasons why
this has not happened, and obvious management ones why it is unlikely
to do so in the imaginable future. This makes the situation very
different from that across the road, and our best bet might indeed be
to try to ameliorate the siting of the substation.
With respect, I think the reference to anything being 'better than more
apartments' is a bit of a furphy. Apartments are not proposed for the
wetland itself; they will be built at Eastlake no matter what, and our
job is to minimise the impact of their inhabitants on the reserve -
perhaps primarily by education, by policing, by an effective buffer
zone and by offering more convenient locales for running,
dog-exercising, picnicking etc.
Anyway, I'll go back to what I should be doing and leave this to others
now. Thanks Ian, for prompting me to some slightly more thoughtful
responses.
Oh, and I agree - Disneyfy is definitely the correct verb.
cheers
Ian Fraser
Ian Hodgson wrote:
If, as seems to be the case, the main reason for moving
the substation is to increase the value of the surrounding land for the
purposes of subsequent development, then I would think COG, however
skilled we may be in making submissions, is on a hiding to nothing,
given what must be a relatively miniscule number of users that the
wetlands attract in their present form. I don't see how developing the
Jerrabombera wetlands along the lines of the Hunter Valley and Banrock
Station wetlands is Disneyfying the place, at least not from looking at
the pictures of the two centres shown on the Riversmart website.
Business breakfasts may be slightly over the top, but the idea of a
centre to educate the community about the value and fascination of bird
life can't be all bad, and supporting something along those lines,
which seems to me far better than more apartments, however tastefully
designed, may be the best way to get support for saving the wetlands
from ultimate destruction.
Ian Hodgson
On 03/02/2010, at 9:29 AM, Ian Fraser wrote:
Unless things have changed -
and they may have, and I can't quickly lay
my hands on the plan details - my understanding is that the site of the
proposed substation is pretty much where the existing smaller pump
station etc is, opposite the Kelly Swamp carpark. That to me seems less
alarming than proposals to Disneylandise the area to attract 100,000
recreationists (or breakfast meetings - presumably not in the hides or
on the grass!), apparently just because....
Ian
On 03/02/2010, at 7:44 AM, Elizabeth Compston wrote:
This morning's CT . "Revitalised wetlands may attract business breakfast meetings". Riversmart--go to riversmart.org. to get details---100,000 visitors, but they won't be birds. I have not looked at the website yet, but will later. It could be that they have good ideas. It is the location of the electricity substation that worries me, and its size
Anyone been there lately?
Elizabeth
*******************************************************************************************************
This is the email announcement and discussion list of the Canberra Ornithologists Group.
Please ensure that emails posted to the list are less than 100 kb in size.
List-Post: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds");"><>
List-Help: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-help");"><>
List-Unsubscribe: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-unsubscribe");"><>
List-Subscribe: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-subscribe");"><>
List archive: <http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/canberrabirds>
List manager: David McDonald, email m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-owner");"><>
*******************************************************************************************************
This is the email announcement and discussion list of the Canberra Ornithologists Group.
Please ensure that emails posted to the list are less than 100 kb in size.
List-Post: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds");"><>
List-Help: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-help");"><>
List-Unsubscribe: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-unsubscribe");"><>
List-Subscribe: m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-subscribe");"><>
List archive: <http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/canberrabirds>
List manager: David McDonald, email m("canberrabirds.org.au","canberrabirds-owner");"><>
--
Ian Fraser, m("pcug.org.au","ianf");">
Environment Tours; Vertego Environmental Consultancy
GPO Box 3268, Canberra, ACT 2601
ph: 61 2 6249 1560
---
--
Ian Fraser, m("pcug.org.au","ianf");">
Environment Tours; Vertego Environmental Consultancy
GPO Box 3268, Canberra, ACT 2601
ph: 61 2 6249 1560
---
|
|
