National Parks - "National"?

To: Peter Morgan <>, "" <>
Subject: National Parks - "National"?
From: Graeme Stevens <>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:38:08 +1100
You may be correct Peter that "National" has such historical validity and I am 
in no position to disagree.
I guess I was less interested in interfering with the title and more concerned 
for community understanding and awareness when individual State Governments are 
tempted to interfere with "their" State owned and managed "National Parks" when 
short of cash or subject to minority pressure groups (e.g. for hunting, 
logging, gas and mineral exploration etc.).
It just seems the conservation battle needs to be waged repeatedly, on many 
state fronts and on the same or similar issues. As we all know,  each valid and 
worthwhile environmental fight only gets one loss. "The other side" can suffer 
multiple losses if necessary, regroup and fight again.
But yes, glad we have 'em whatever we choose to call them. 
(I wish they were as easy to manage as they were to declare though)
Good birding 

> Subject: National Parks - "National"? Yes, really
> From: 
> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:35:21 +1100
> CC: 
> To: 
> In the nomenclature of the IUCN, if I recall correctly, Australia's national 
> parks are covered by the phrase where they are set up by the highest 
> government authority.  In this instance, the States, as the highest 
> appropriate authority - the federal government not owning the land - are 
> responsible for establishing and managing national parks.
> Royal National Park was the second one in the world, and set up by the State 
> government.
> While it might sound confusing, the term is historical, appropriate, and 
> should not be interfered with lest we see the national park estate downgraded.
> Peter Morgan
> > On 6 Mar 2014, at 11:37 am, Graeme Stevens <> wrote:
> > 
> > It seems to me that one of our issues in Australia is the title.
> > 
> > We delude ourselves (or the general public) that "National" Parks are part 
> > of some form of well managed National estate when largely they are at the 
> > whim of the State Government of the day in terms of budgets, access etc.  - 
> > and  Commonwealth oversight is comparatively weak. They are in fact not 
> > "National" at all  (Territory parks excepted?).
> > 
> > At least in the USA there would appear to be a comprehensive National 
> > oversight of their resource.
> > 
> > Am I off the mark here?
> > 
> > Graeme
> > 
Birding-Aus mailing list

To change settings or unsubscribe visit:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU