Hello all
I may have come into this debate a little late,
having been on tour until recently. I have, however, caught up on the news about
the possible acquisition of Newhaven Station by Birds Australia.
I spend a great deal of my time on public lands of various
descriptions - 'national' -ie state - parks, real national parks, nature
reserves, state forests, bird observatories - as well as Gluepot.
Our public lands are generally in a parlous state. It is hard
to understand how management of a property by Birds Australia could possibly be
worse than the example set by government. Although, it must be said, there are
many examples of good management. And, OK, we have to pressure government
to lift their act as they do control an awful lot of land. But the good examples
usually involve the expenditure of vast amounts of money - much of it wasted or
spent on large 'information' centres (ie restaurants and shops - with some
posters and stuffed animals for 'information'). Feral animal and weed control is
usually non-existent or perfunctory and 'field' staff never seem to make it into
the field, or are spread so thinly as to be invisible.
I could mention some shining lights to counter this impression
- the early years of Lawn Hill National Park, Two Peoples Bay Nature Reserve,
Dryandra Forest, Uluru (except for the rock-climbing), the cultural centre in
Kakadu National Park, Currawinya National Park, the walks in Minnamurra
Rainforest and Tibooburra Park Information Centre all come to mind. But the
overall picture is a mixture of under-resourcing combined with wastage. If you
add to that the continual organisational revolutions and you do not have a
pretty picture.
The theory that we should pressure government on conservation
issues is great - the actual result on the ground will never be up to the
standards set by expert and highly-motivated groups such as Birds Australia -
and be nowhere near as cost effective or amenable to a high level of public
support, including bequests. And what a perfect way to make a bequest - it is
rather less likely that governements will ever benefit much from bequests!
Just look at the reserves owned by the RSBP in Britain - funded in large part by
bequests.
I believe that Birds Australia should continue to purchase
reserves. However, I also feel that they need more 'selling' to a wider audience
- and to be used to vastly increase the membership of Birds Australia. But don't
neglect the bird observatories! They are also an important part of the
fabric.
We need every skerrick of land we can put our hands on to be
managed for its wildlife values - be it 'Land for Wildlife', 'Wildlife Refuges',
Birds Australia Reserves - or parcels managed by other bird clubs and nature
bodies. The management will be imperfect in various ways - but a lot better than
the alternative!
Richard
|