Hello Jill Denning and others,
I have been pondering two postings on this topic from Jill Denning and I have a
couple of queries/points.
I hope, Jill, you don't mind that I have chosen this forum to pose those
queries/points rather than communicating with you directly; I am doing it this
way because I would like to see if anyone else has any information to add that
might be relevant.
The original posting was from Jill Denning on Fri 16 Feb 2001 and the second was
on Sun 18 Feb 2001 in response to a comment by Michael Norris.
(I hope that Michael doesn't take this posting of mine as an indication that I
am disagreeing with Jill as I am a bit concerned over his threat to deal with
anyone who does disagree!)
Jill's article discussed an area of SEQld that I have been acquainted with
through family connections and leisure activities for a very significant period
of time.
The area includes Bribie Island, Pumicestone Passage and the tiny locality of
Toorbul.
Some 50 years ago I endured a number of harrowing 'sea' voyages from Redcliffe
to Bribie island to visit my maternal Grandfather who fed me on the world's best
sandcrabs which I usually fed to the fish on the voyage home.
Unfortunately, I was not into birdwatching in those early childhood days.
However, later in life when I became independently mobile I became aware of the
masses of birds that could be seen at Toorbul and other areas of the Pumicestone
Passage which separates Bribie Island from the mainland.
I am not a member of the Queensland Wader Study Group (QWSG). I was for a short
time some years ago; why I am no longer a member is not up for discussion but it
is sufficient to say my reasons are philosophical and nothing to do with
personalities.
I have been a distant observer of the on/off/on development of the Dux Creek
area of Bribie Island since it began and have also noted the massive development
of the island in general that has taken place in my lifetime.
Fortunately, the proposal for a nuclear powered industrial development suggested
for the Pumicestone Passage area during the Joh Bjelke Petersen National Party
State Government days was considered too 'hot' even for a such an authoritarian
oganisation as that one.
The suggested paper-pulp factory discharging into Pumicestone Passage would also
have been an environmental disaster.
I have no doubts that highly motivated and incentive driven capitalists have
their eyes on large tracts of natural habitat in the area that they wish to
'improve'.
No matter how 'environmentally aware' the developer is any development of
natural areas must mean a loss of natural habitat and the animals and plants
that use that habitat.
In a society such as ours development of natural areas into something more
'useful' is inevitable.
That is not to say that it is 'good'; 'good' or 'not-good' is determined by who
is looking at the development and from which angle the view is.
My personal point of view on developments such as the Dux Creek canal estate is
that once such developments have started there is no stopping them.
Money has been spent and money is to be made; an unstoppable force has been set
into motion.
The best thing that environmentalists can do then is to try to minimise the
damage.
But be warned! Developers learn from every setback they receive, as does any
good tactician.
In the case of the natural wader roosts destroyed by the Dux Creek development,
I doubt that in the long term the artificial roosts will prove effective,
however, there is nothing to lose from trying the experiment.
On the other hand, I am quite concerned about the comment that artificial roosts
are planned for the Toorbul area.
(I must admit that I don't know where North Headland is so I won't comment on
that location. But Jill's comments on that project in her second posting are
worth noting.)
It is my observation that Toorbul has a significant area of natural wader high
tide roosts at the moment and there doesn't appear to be any development in the
area that would disturb those sites.
Question: Are there plans to 'develop' the Toorbul area in such a way that the
natural roosts would be damaged thus requiring artificial roosts to be
established?
If not, why is there a plan to interfere with the natural habitats? (It
seems to me that any area used for an artificial roost would impact on natural
habitat of some kind.)
Not being a capitalist myself (perhaps an accident of birth?), I don't share the
rosy view of developers that Jill appears to. But then I don't suppose I have
met the right ones. I do recall someone called Christopher Skase though. He
seemed to be a 'nice' fellow...... for a while.
And of course, there is Keith Williams; he is a man of vision doing great works
for an appreciative group of residents in North Queensland.
A succession of developer dominated local councils in Redcliffe, a city from
which it is possible to see Bribie Island, has seen that city progressively
deprived of most of the natural habitat and wader roosts that made the area one
of great
significance. Significant inter-tidal areas have been 're-claimed' (a very
interesting term) mainly using fill consisting of detritus obviously obtained
from areas of re-development and, interestingly, usually delivered at 2:00 am in
the morning!
Finally, I am intrigued by the notion of an environmental consultant who "didn't
know much about waders" but who is advising a company developing an area where
the main threat is to a wader habitat.
Incidentally, I must admit to being a hypocrite to a significant degree in that
as a Self-funded Retiree espousing distaste for capitalists and their twisted,
self-serving attitudes I am dependant on
the capitalist system for my meagre income and am willing to justify that in my
own mind.
Sigh........ it's not easy being green!
Bob Inglis
Woody Point, Qld, Australia.
Birding-Aus is on the Web at
www.shc.melb.catholic.edu.au/home/birding/index.html
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message
"unsubscribe birding-aus" (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
