> One compromise is user fees, such as entrance fees and charges for certain
> specific facilities, like camping.
I'd like to weigh in on this point. In Queensland at this time
there is a major problem in that only national parks with regular
visitors are being manned, while other parks are having staff pulled
from them and conservation programs abandoned. While supplementing a
parks income with entry fees/camping fees is nice, it has created a
situation where parks that cannot do this because of isolation (or any
other reason) aren't able to use the meagre funding allocated to stay
open.
Case in point: Idalia National Park in QLD has or will shortly
have its ranger pulled from the park and stationed with a group in a
town nearby. This group will roam from park to park, monitoring and
fixing problems. However Idalia NP also happens to be one of only two
locations that Bridled Nailtail Wallabies occur, since this is the
location of the captive breeding and release population. The removal
of the ranger from this park basically ends the captive breeding and
feral animal control in the area, and dooms this species to local
extinction, leaving only one remaining population in existance. All
because Idalia is too far from civilisation to be a viable camping
ground/tourist destination.
Surely sometimes conservation is more important than public use, and
where it is, the user pays system is hopelessly inadequate.
What has this got to do with birds? In your imagination, replace
Bridled Nailtail Wallaby with Ground Parrot, or Noisy Scrub Bird,
(etc, etc, etc) and then imagine how the user pays system will help
these species.
Regards,
Chris
--------------------------------------------
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
|
