Thanks for that, Syd.
Many don't realize the the National Park Service in the US (before
the current administration and the devolved Gale Norton, of course)
had designated "natural soundscape" as a resource. This remarkable
concept means that it falls under the same protection as other
resources (creatures, vegetation, etc.) and the park mandate is to do
just that. I'm proud to say that, although the contribution was tiny
compared to some of those working from within the organization, the
research and other work we did over the past decade played role in
getting this activated and in place.
Perhaps you could initiate the process whereby the parks in your
lovely country to do something similar.
Bernie Krause
Wild Sanctuary, Inc.
P. O. Box 536
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
707-996-6677 tel
707-996-0280 fax
http://www.wildsanctuary.com
>Bernie wrote (Tuesday, 22 July 2003 5:52 AM) :
>
>>
>> More power to folks like Michael Powers. We also ought to
>> congratulate folks like Rush Holt, a representative from New Jersey
>> in the House of Representatives, who recently introduced a bill
>> (unfortunately defeated in the House by an even vote of 210/210 last
>> week) to silence snowmobiles in Yellowstone Nat. Park. For those in
>> this group who support that kind of objective, you might want to
>> write to him (and your own local congresspersons) with a nod of
>> support (http://www.house.gov.rholt).
>>
>
>[In Australia, our Constitution makes land matters, including the
>establishment and administration of National Parks, the responsibility of
>the individual States and not the Federal Government.]
>
>My last task before retiring (in '88) from nature conservation
>administration in Queensland, was to draft new National Park regulations.
>Since then, a comprehensive Nature Conservation Act has been enacted, and
>Nature Conservation Regulations have been made. I'm now out of touch with
>such matters and can't be sure there's been no subsequent change, but the
>1994 version of those regs, still carried my wording, (except for changing
>"national Park" to "protected area"), in Regulation 88 (2):
>
> 88.(1) A person must not use a generator, compressor or other similar
>motor in a protected area -
>
> (a) unless its use is permitted under a regulatory notice or permit; or
> (b) in contravention of a regulatory notice or permit.
>
> (2) A person must not use a radio, tape recorder or other sound or
>amplifier system in a way that may cause unreasonable disturbance to a
>person or native animal in a protected area.
>
>["Animal", as defined, included birds.]
>
>This was a spin-off from my having caused extreme distress to a bird by
>playback long ago - as mentioned by Jim Morgan in his excellent
>consideration of playback. (Thank you very much, Jim, for giving us such a
>comprehensive run-down on this somewhat controversial subject.)
>
>However, at the time, I did not feel it necessary to point out to my
>superiors, that the reg. could be used to control the playback of birdsong
>if circumstances warranted such action. Safer to let them think it was just
>a noise-control measure. And of course it would only have confused our
>simple-minded parliamentarians, to have tried to explain playback to them,
>when the draft Regs were being considered by Cabinet, and later tabled in
>the House. :-)
>
>I have no idea if the regulation is currently used to control playback, but
>it could be, if necessary.
>
>The legal-minded among naturerecordists may very well be thinking that
>"unreasonable disturbance" is a somewhat vague term and it might be
>difficult to produce evidence sufficient to secure a conviction for an
>offence. However, I didn't regard that as a serious problem: if a Park
>Ranger (sens lat.) considered playback was causing unreasonable disturbance,
>he has the authority to instruct the person to stop.
>
>If the person does not do so, then he has committed the offence of not
>complying with the Ranger's lawful instruction. Should that get into court,
>then I think the onus would be on the defence to prove that the ranger was
>not entitled to consider the disturbance to the bird to be "unreasonable",
>if that were the contention, rather than on the prosecution to prove that he
>was.
>
>And in any case, the main aim is always to secure the understanding and
>hence the cooperation of the park visitor, and to avoid getting into court
>at all, unless some blatant breach has occurred.
>
>Syd Curtis in Brisbane, Australia
>
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|