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
Graeme
> 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:
http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
|
