I do wonder who among us would have enough time to explore and
independently verify every single conservation issue to the extent
you seem to suggest necessary Bob, before taking any action on it. I
would have thought the precautionary principle and the quite advanced
state of environmental degradation which is very well documented in
this country, would promote a far more pro-active approach to
conservation outcomes.
I have been actively involved with conservation issues in a full time
capacity for more than a decade now, and there are still numerous
complex environmental issues which I find I have to take other
peoples advice on, if I am going to be able take some action. Given
that scientists are often either employed by the Governments who are
approving the dastardly deeds, or too busy doing their research work
to provide detailed review of policy within the timeframes, it is
more often then not left to environmental organisations to provide
such information.
I have found that conservationists generally have extremely well
researched and well considered grounds for any claims that they make,
whilst various vested interests in the mining, farming and logging
sectors don't bother so much about it. After all, their influence is
generally not dependent on well reasoned thought and well crafted
arguments, but instead on power and money.
I am sure that any random perusal of newspaper articles over the last
year would shed some light with regard to which groups are the ones
running the scare campaigns and which presenting reasoned arguments
on a whole range of environmental issues. And more credit goes to
the conservationists who do it mostly in their own time, and receive
nothing but trouble in return.
For my part, I salute all those who are prepared to take a risk for
conservation (if you can call writing a letter a risk), and much
prefer precaution used on behalf of our dwindling environment, rather
then in opposition to it.
On 9 Dec 2004 at 12:59, Bob Cook wrote:
> Thank you, David, for expressing well a concern I am sure many of us
> have. On this forum, it is probably true to say that we are all
> concerned about land clearing, pesticide use, shooting, 4WD overuse,
> feral animals, National Park preservation, etc, etc. But far too
> often well meaning people will just pick up on an opinion expressed
> on a forum like this and race off with petitions, letters to
> Ministers or into the media, without doing what David urges - explore
> and investigate the issue - from all sides - first.
>
> Many, many times, the pleas of "conservationists" are ignored or,
> even worse,ridiculed because the arguments and facts are not well
> understood and are not well represented by these (well meaning)
> folk. Unfortunately, the whole cause of moderation and common sense
> in conservation is then damaged and given less credibility, through
> the media and politicians, into the eyes of "the man in the street",
> i.e. the people who really need to be convinced.
>
> I rarely follow up on the requests on this forum to send letters,
> etc., as I do not have all the facts. If it really concerns me I
> will learn more and then act if I believe there needs to be action.
>
> Please, explore and think first - act later!
>
> Bob Cook
> Mildura
> Victoria
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [owner-birding-
> Behalf Of
>
> Sent: Thursday, 9 December 2004 12:00 PM
> To:
> Subject: [BIRDING-AUS] Re: landclearing - and the future of birds in
> nsw
>
>
> The draft Regulation and other documents will not deliver on the
> Governments promise to end broadscale landclearing for the following
> reasons:
>
> Ø There is no ban on clearing of remnant vegetation. Instead, a
> system of offsets has been introduced which will mean that putting a
> fence around one patch of remnant vegetation can be used to gain
> approval to legally clear another area of remnant vegetation.
> Ø In addition, there are numerous loopholes and flaws that will allow
> extensive clearing without any environmental assessment or approvals
> being required. Added to this is the fact that core provisions are
> essentially unenforceable.
>
> I think the above is a bit simplistic and, perhaps, even a bit
> misleading. If you are interested in this subject I suggest you do a
> bit of research rather than accepting the opinion of others
> (including myself). It's interesting that some green groups are not
> happy with the new regulations, particularly as they supported them
> not so long ago. It seems they have something in common with the
> farmers who are also not happy.
>
> The new system is not a perfect one but I think it will deliver an
> end to broadscale land clearing in NSW. Why? Because the system in
> place to deliver the offsets mentioned above (through Property
> Vegetation Plans) requires the farmer to work through a series of
> processes before the Dept of Infrastructure & Natural Resources
> (DIPNR) can give the green (or red) light to the development. To say
> that putting a fence around one patch of remnant veg will allow
> another patch to be cleared is reducing the case to it's simplest. A
> number of conditions must be met before such an offset is allowed.
> The farmers aren't happy because they can see that these conditions
> are going to be very difficult to meet and that, in essence,
> broadscale land clearing will cease.
>
> I'm not sure what the loopholes and flaws mentioned above are. It
> would be nice if these loopholes and flaws were explained rather than
> just expecting one to accept that they exist.
>
> The impacts from clearing native vegetation are severe and many are
> irreversible - the destruction of wildlife and habitat, erosion,
> widespread salinity, the release of greenhouse gases, and the
> extinction of species. And yet this regulation gives more of the
> same and will not solve the problem of landclearing.
>
> The clearing of native vegetation, along with the lack of
> regeneration, is a major issue in the long term survival of our
> birds. It is the primary reason why Regent Honeyeaters (and many
> other woodland birds) are now endangered. The new regulations are
> far from perfect but I think they will fulfil one thing, the end to
> broadscale land clearing in NSW. What I think may happen in the
> future is that the system proposed will be overhauled to make it more
> workable. The one advantage of this is that it will allow those
> interested in the conservation of our woodlands to get their head
> around the problem and come up with some workable solutions.
>
> Cheers
>
> David Geering
>
>
> This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
> confidential information.
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and
> then delete the message. Views expressed in this message may be those
> of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of the
> NSW Department of Environment and Conservation.
--------------------------------------------
Birding-Aus is now on the Web at
www.birding-aus.org
--------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message 'unsubscribe
birding-aus' (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
