I understand that 'Bowra' is not, in itself, large enough for its bird
species to be self -sustaining, nor is it adjoined by a large area of
already protected land, e.g a National Park. Many of the bird
populations are either nomadic or dependent on surrounding properties as
well for survival especially in hard times such as SW Qld has just
experienced. This vulnerability would make its purchase by a
conservation organisation less attractive and I agree with Chris that it
is not a' Mornington', etc.
The species on 'Bowra's' list are basically the species of SW Qld. They
are simply easier for birdwatchers to see in one place because access to
the property is provided by the present property owners; and because the
provision of water for stock congregates some species in convenient
areas. Wouldn't the signing of a covenant between the present owners of
'Bowra' and EPA afford the protection needed for the birds, as the
covenants are binding even when the land is sold? I believe the terms
of the covenant are agreed to by the property owner and EPA and can be
adjusted to suit a number of situations, including ongoing production.
Nicci Thompson
Phone: 07 46343074
Mobile: 0427 343 074
Email:
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Chris Sanderson
Sent: Thursday, 12 June 2008 9:53 AM
To: Birding Aus
Subject: Bowra
Hi all,
What interests me about this whole debate is that no one seems to be
addressing the core concern of the conservation groups approached - that
for
the same money much, much more could be protected. If someone goes to
the
effort of raising enough to pull off Simon's plan, why not invest in a
different property that has more value for biodiversity? After all, the
groups approached to buy Bowra no doubt consulted with experts to come
to
their decision, an offer to buy the property outright for them would not
have been taken lightly. I have visited Bowra and it's a lovely place
with
some amazing birds, no denying that, but at the same time, it's no
Mornington Sanctuary, Broome Bird Observatory, or Barren Grounds...you
want
someone to buy it, you have to make your case on more than rave birding
reviews. Let's hear some good science.
Regards,
Chris
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Simon Blanchflower <
> wrote:
> This is an interesting debate. Perhaps one thing to consider is that
people
> on this list and perhaps through the Birds Australia mailing list are
> specifically invited to particpate in a opportunity to part share the
> ownership of this property with others through say a trust structure
or
> perhaps through a tennants in common arrangement. I think the trust
> structure is probably easiest (plus it would be easier to administer /
> provide liquidity for multiple interests) as there are a number of
trustees
> available that can "run" the trust and allow for exit and entry of
unit
> holders through time.
>
> The key issue is the total funds needed in order to "run" the property
in
> perpetuity. But let's say the property is worth $1.5m and the ongoing
costs
> are say $200k per annum (which may be too little or too much) the
total cost
> would be about $4m (assuming an 8% discount rate) needed in the trust
to
> purchase the property and to run it.
>
> So... if we could get say 1000 unit holders interested and assume
equal
> ownership in the trust that would be $4000 each - almost equivalent to
a set
> of HANZABs.
>
> Now that would be of interest to me and others I suspect, but we would
of
> course need to see whether there are any other properties in the area
which
> might be better suited from a cost/benefit perspective.
>
> Just a thought!
> Simon.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---- Phil & Sue Gregory <> wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> > Good summary of the Bowra situation on birding-aus; I had a a
> > wealthy American client a couple of years ago who was very impressed
> > with the place and actually got a group together to fund the
purchase,
> > hoping to give it to one of the well-known conservation bodies. The
> > stumbling block proved to be the apparent need for hundreds of
> > thousands of $ as management each year.
> > This was a great shame as I too would love to see the place kept
as
> > is, and aided in recovering from stocking. I fear new owners taking
it
> > over, giving birders the flick then running intensive stocking and
> > clearance. I thought the price was very reasonable too, it seems
such
> > shame we may lose this gem over what is a relatively paltry sum in
> > business terms.
> > Phil Gregory
> > ===============================
> > www.birding-aus.org
> > birding-aus.blogspot.com
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> > send the message:
> > unsubscribe
> > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> > to:
> > ===============================
>
> ===============================
> www.birding-aus.org
> birding-aus.blogspot.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
> ===============================
>
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
