I didn't mention the Grey-tailed tattler in my earlier comment but
Michael Norris in commenting on my comment did.
Again I wonder what conceivably useful 'management plan' can be
employed in Victoria
to conserve this species. Again I guess ‘conserve coastal
mudflats’ will be ‘the management plan’ (thanks for that!) but
this should be done anyway.
Why the need for Victorians to focus on this specific species? To quote
Michael's own words, the reason for listing was a decline in numbers in Victoria but:
"the most likely reasons for the decline
being due to threats acting on the taxon in other countries on the flyway..."
This suggests to me the need for conservation effort elsewhere on the
Flyway not a specific case for action in Victoria.
It seems to me a frivolous listing unrelated to Victorian conservation concerns
that the Act is supposed to concerned with.
Harry Clarke.
