To: <>
Subject: News
From: "Philip Veerman" <>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:53:54 +1000
I agree about the absurdity of a pretence of achieving conservation aims by just removing a bit here and there until none useful is left. Of course I would like more of the community to value conservation needs more highly so that conservation outcomes are improved. But sorry I don't see any logical connection here. Compromises and conflicting priorities are constantly happening in whole of government programs. Apart from that Mark asked a question, which by its nature is neither correct or incorrect. Labelling something as "endangered" is a description. Every animal going to the abattoir is endangered. That is the purpose of it going there. There is little intent to reverse that process. Every tree will die. Every wild animal is in danger from predation, starvation, etc so being endangered is no big deal. When the Great Auk was becoming rare due to excessive hunting, there was a rush on to obtain the last museum specimens before it died out. Many people around the world are endangered by actions of their own or neighbouring governments or ethnic / religious groups. Some such organisations have seen creating that danger as their primary aim. Whilst some of us might like to think that “endangered box-woodland” expresses an intent to protect it, other sections of the community do not see it that way or even care. Unfortunately in a democracy, the latter group is usually the majority. I don't see a logical connection between that description and taking actions to preserve it. Especially when there is the option to use weasel words like offsets, to get around the issue.
What would be useful is if we all produced less waste or wanted less housing etc.  
-----Original Message-----From: Denis Wilson [ Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013 12:20 AM      To: Mark Clayton
Cc: Margaret Leggoe; Hastir, Chris;       Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] News

Mark is correct.
  • Does the term “endangered box-woodland” actually mean anything if you are allowed to destroy it?
Offsets are a totally discredited fallacy.
Everything they claim to be offsetting is in fact a loss to the Environment.

Denis Wilson
Thou shall not steal from future generations by impoverishing or poisoning the Earth.

"The Nature of Robertson"

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Mark Clayton <> wrote:

Like Margaret I’m baffled by this whole thing. Does the term “endangered box-woodland” actually mean anything if you are allowed to destroy it? A little bit here and a little bit there and before long, hey presto we don’t have any left so we don’t need to worry about conserving it. To say they will conserve a bigger area on ridges, where a hell of a lot of the ACT’s nature reserves are already situated is defeating the purpose of declaring the box- gum woodlands on the lowlands which is what the area around the Mugga tip is. I find the whole scenario of so-called “offsets” similar to something that comes out the rear end of a male bovine!


I had seen reference to this before but thanks to Chris Hastir for bringing it to our attention.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • News, Hastir, Chris
    • News, Margaret Leggoe
      • News, Mark Clayton
        • News, Denis Wilson
        • News, Philip Veerman <=
        • News, Kevin and Gwenyth Bray
    • News, Peter Ormay

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 Canberra Ornithologists Group 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 list contact David McDonald, list manager, phone (02) 6231 8904 or email . If you can not contact David McDonald e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU