Thank you Philip for a measured contribution to this unexpected debate. And thank you too to the dozens of COG members who have emailed me privately to thank me and to support me for what I wrote. I certainly had no intention of starting a debate and in
some ways I apologise to my COG colleagues for entering it. I simply felt obliged to respond to claims which surely most readers would think were of an extreme nature and which had the capacity to hurt people who freely devote their time to planting trees
and weeding seedlings and taking people around the Arboretum, including, among others, disabled people and children and the elderly. Of course there will always be differing opinions about the merits of the Arboretum and of course these opinions are valid
and deserve discussion. But Philip is right – not everyone is interested in birds and we should be careful how much we judge other people by our own interests. Of course it is obvious that some trees at the Arboretum are not significant to birds but as Philip
also said, birds are not the primary focus of the Arboretum. When I mentioned the Glossy Black Cockatoo and the Drooping She Oaks, it was not to justify the whole Arboretum. They are a small part only of the overall concept. I mentioned them only in response
to the unwarranted suggestion that there was an intention to attract Starlings and Common Mynahs to the Arboretum. The fact that politicians have actually been named in this discussion thread – Stanhope and Barr –suggests to me that there is a long-standing
political dimension to this debate which is unfortunate. It was possible that it may not have turned out that we got an Arboretum as the Commonwealth gift for the bicentenary, but we did, and the Commonwealth is where the bulk of the finance came from. The
Arboretum is dedicated to becoming self supporting including in water.
know some people would have preferred some other project. One acquaintance of mine genuinely felt at the time that the site would make an excellent theme park with great slopes for water slides and that such a Disney World concept would create far more
tourist dollars for the ACT economy. But the decision was about 13 years ago and I think most of Canberra now accept that the Arboretum is there and part of Canberra and have moved on from the debate. It is increasingly popular as a facility. Few Canberrans
would now regard it as ‘folly' and I think even fewer would regard it as an attempt to create a 'barren wasteland'. Such loaded phrases have the power to hurt but I am loathe to think they were wielded with that intent. Sincerely, John
From: Philip Veerman <>
Date: Monday, 16 January 2017 at 9:34 AM
To: chatline <>
Subject: RE: [canberrabirds] What are they for?
It is reasonable to discuss the role of the arboretum to learn lessons from it and inform future choices. It is curious to think about the arboretum
and whether it is a good thing or not, as though the issue is birds. We are a bird interested group but not all the world is. We should chose our battles and do as well as we can in pushing conservation issues when they involve our expertise. So we can not
and should not attempt to judge everything by birds. It simply is not realistic in a public tax paying democracy. I see the arboretum as something of an experiment and a nice place to visit (not often). The area could easily have been devoted to housing,
sports stadiums or car parks. It is reasonable that some conservation efforts be devoted primarily to birds, some to bettongs, some to various trees or whatever. Whether
the Deodar Cedar, is of no value to birds is hardly important, provided that plantings of Deodar Cedar are of value to Deodar Cedar and there is some well considered
basis for allocating the space to it and that the space is only token and that the species does not become invasive. I hope the arboretum does not become a modern version of the thoughts of the acclimatization society of the 1850s. Though I doubt it would.
I cannot see it as realistic to accept a blanket statement that: “The fact is that the bird life around us is disappearing.” It can hardly be “the
policy of the Barr Labor government”. Yes there are significant changes going on and various actions of almost any government around the world contribute to conservation problems. But there is not an overall disappearing. Those changes are consequence of
many things, including habitat loss (often well outside the ACT). Affecting each species in its own way. A small amount of Deodar Cedar is not going to impact adversely on most birds (well not more than a car park of the same size).
Philip
