I have tried twice to send this message since Bob's was posted. I
understand my settings preferences caused the message to arrive too
big. Thanks for your message Russell. Try again.
Jill
Hello Bob,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am pleased you sent it through
the list, because my intention was to stimulate some discussion.
"Sigh........ it's not easy being green!"
Bob, I read this and laughed and sighed too. It certainly isn't an
easy path that I am taking, and it would be a lot easier to go
birding. My approach came from years of watching people on the TV
news chaining themselves to trees or lying on front of bulldozers,
and I thought, "There's got to be a better way." Maybe there is,
maybe there isn't.
There is so much about this story that I have not told you, but a few
pertinent points will address: some of your questions
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.
Indeed you are correct. Sixteen years ago, Dux Creek was a small
creek lined on either side with a dense, broad forest of mangroves.
Although others have argued hopefully that it could have been a wader
roost, I have seen the aerials, looked at the ground levels, and am
of the belief that if waders used it, they were probably only those
species which will roost in mangroves - Whimbrel, Grey-tailed
Tattler, Curlew Sandpiper and Terek Sandpipers. No one has ever been
able to come up with information, either documented or anecdotal, to
cause me to believe otherwise. It could not have provided more than
minor roosting at best, and certainly not on a very high tide. The
canal development was approved sixteen years ago, and although canal
developments have since been severely discredited on environmental
grounds, those approvals remained valid. Councils since then have had
to live with the original approvals. Only huge amounts of public
money (millions in compensation) would have saved that land from the
bulldozer. After the bulldozers went in, some time elapsed while the
ground settled, and then the area began to attract waders in
increasing numbers. Wader numbers at Dux Creek over the years have
increased, whilst at the same time there have been roost losses in
Moreton Bay. My guess is that one's loss was another's gain. When the
developer's former environmental consultant proposed in an EIS to
Caboolture Council that the destruction of the roost would not affect
the waders, and that they would disperse naturally within the
Passage, we questioned the arguments which arrived at this
conclusion. We, for certain, were not confident enough to say that
the waders would be safely relocated naturally. We understood that
there was no hope of saving the current roost, and set about devising
a strategy which would attempt to relocate waders safely. This is the
process already described in my previous emails. We already know that
waders choose to use artificial roosts. Dux was itself artificial
(dredge spoil), so is Manly Boat Harbour (dredge spoil). So, for that
matter, is Toorbul, because without the hand of man to cut the
mangroves, the Toorbul roost as we know it today, would not exist.
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 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.
Once again, I agree with you. I, too, am troubled by the destruction
of natural habitat for development. (I have some other ideas on that,
to be aired at a later date.) We are not dealing with a natural area
at Dux Creek. It is a construction site, an artificial roost, an area
laid waste by the bulldozer sixteen years ago. North Headland is on
that altered land, and no natural habitat would be changed by the
planned North Headland roost. We came into the picture many years too
late to be able to conserve any natural habitat.
The best thing that environmentalists can do then is to try to
minimise the damage.
Precisely, Bob, we are trying to rescue some of our natural assets
from the ashes.
On the other hand, I am quite concerned about the comment that
artificial roosts
are planned for the Toorbul area.
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.)
There are not any plans to develop Toorbul to my knowledge, and our
hopes to create artificial roosting at Toorbul are additional and
complementary to the current roost, not a replacement. However, there
are problems which we have had to address. We have a lot of waders to
relocate from Dux (up to 1000 Eastern Curlew alone have used Dux on
peak passage), and North Headland will not be big enough. Toorbul is
not a high tide roost in the true sense, because during 30% of all
high tides the roost is inundated, and once the water rises the birds
fly to Dux to roost. The Toorbul roost would best be described as a
staging roost. I know it is a favourite place for people to go and
watch waders, but you won't find waders there over a 2 metre high
tide (Brisbane Bar), and even lower when a strong SE wind blows. Our
need is to create some safe king tide roosting to replace that
currently available at Dux. Near the current Toorbul roost is an area
(not natural habitat) which could provide further roosting space on
higher tides, but it is also not very big. We are beggars, and we
can't be choosy. Wish we could.
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.
Oh please, Bob! I carry no brief for developers in general, but the
brief I carry is that of rescuing something worthwhile from an
otherwise doomed situation. I am not prepared to lie down and die and
let the waders lose essential roosting. That's the alternative. And I
repeat that the people we are dealing with are good to deal with.
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.
Precisely my viewpoint. There has been a net loss of waders in your
area through these habitat losses. We've probably got your birds in
the Pumicestone Passage. It's probably your birds we're trying to
house!
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.
No, that's not how it is. I must be careful. Suffice to say that a
different environmental consultant, not from Queensland, was engaged
to handle waders exclusively, and has been quietly dropped. His
interpretation of information which he commissioned was rather
creative. Peter Scott is a competent environmental consultant, but
was originally engaged for a variety of other environmental matters,
in which he has considerable expertise. He slipped into discussions
with us, and we found him very good to deal with. And he takes
advice. We are very happy dealing with him.
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.
Well, Bob, if you want to eat, you have to earn a living, and you
don't have much choice when you look for ways to fund retirement in
our society. I'm in the same boat as you, but I have no problem with
it. And not all capitalists are greedy. Humans are just animals, and
human behavoiur is not always praiseworthy. I'm not out to change our
society. I just accept it. And get on with trying to salvage
something good from the ashes.
Now, having attended to matters which you raised, I want to add that
you have caused me to think further. The lengthy and complex
discussions I held with myself, before deciding to embark upon this
path, were all based upon the premise that I was dealing with the
certain destruction of a habitat. The approvals to develop had
already been given years before I ever saw the site (I first heard
of Dux in 1990, and then only sketchily). I have only known it as a
construction site, which became a roost. You have made me look more
broadly at how I would respond, if I had involvement in an activity
before any approvals were issued, or destruction occurred. And that
is an entirely different matter.
I guess I can partly answer that by looking at the work I am doing
with terns at the other end of the Pumicestone Passage. I see a
threatened habitat, namely the Caloundra sandbanks. It has not been
destroyed, it is a very rich natural asset. It is threatened by
population pressure, that death by a thousand cuts. I want to
conserve that habitat for birds for the future. But I realise that
only good quality information will protect those sandbanks. People
need to know why they should value those sandbanks. So I spend a year
gathering data, then I write up the results, and then I start
pressing buttons in the right quarters to gain my protection. If that
fails, then I'm buggered. But I don't think like that. I won't fail.
Gee, I'm exhausted after that.
Cheers,
Jill
--
Jill Dening
Sunshine Coast, Qld
26º 51' 152º 56'
Ph (07) 5494 0994
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
|
