Archive for the ‘Reptiles’ Category

Wildlife Photography from a respectful distance

Saturday, August 17th, 2013

Eastern Water Dragon

(Physignathus lesueurii)

Taken for the benefit of the photograph, not the dragon

Photo by Editor in Blue Mountains, Australia, 20061112, photo © under ^Creative Commons]

Click image to enlarge

.

Wildlife photography is not about humanising wildlife for entertainment. It ought to be about awareness, wonder and respect for wildlife and their habitat.

Zoology may be about technical understanding of the structure and classification of the animal kingdom, but since Darwin we have realised that animals are so much more complex creatures of behaviour and integral to ecology than just being taxidermied museum specimens for public display.

Zoos are just an extension of museums for the benefit of public entertainment. But they do not respect wildlife in their habitat.

[Source: ^http://katialglobal2viceduau.global2.vic.edu.au/personal-learning/]

.

In their habitat and ecological context, photographed wildlife may be better appreciated and valued for their integral role in Nature. But at a respectful distance.

.

Not for the camera, but naturally obscured in its habitat

A more interpretative photo, but still too close.

Photo by Editor 20061112, photo © under ^Creative Commons]

.

“The two basic processes of education are knowing and valuing”

~ Robert J. Havighurst (1900-1991).

.

Empathy for Other Species is the Key to Ethical Wildlife Photography

[Source: “Empathy for Other Species is the Key to Ethical Wildlife Photography”, by Jim Robertson, ^http://www.wildwatch.org/Binocular/bino01/empathy.html]

<< A deep admiration for Nature has led many to another level of appreciation–the craft of wildlife photography.

Unfortunately, not all who photograph wildlife do so out of caring and with respect for our fellow beings. In fact, the behavior of many photographers, both amateur and professional, can only be described as disrespectful, disruptive and sometimes dangerous to the animals they are photographing.

For example, every spring in Yellowstone you are sure to see a large group of photographers standing around–or even sitting on lawn chairs–talking loudly right outside some poor badger’s birthing den, waiting for the family to emerge. Though these folks may think nothing of the clamor of a rowdy bar or ball game, how would they like to live next door to that bar or ball field, or wake up to the racket of an expectant crowd of photojournalists right outside their bedroom window?

In response to this kind of ill-behavior, which invariably results in the harassment or endangerment of wildlife, informal guidelines have been established to spell out just how close, in yards or feet, one should get to an individual animal, depending on that species’ tolerance zone.

Badger Den

This mother and young badger were photographed across the road from their den using a 600mm telephoto lens and a 2X multiplier

Photo © Jim Robertson

^http://www.wildwatch.org/Binocular/bino01/empathy.html]

.

But rather than memorizing numbers and gauging distances, perhaps it would be easier for photographers and wildlife observers to apply The Golden Rule in each and every situation.

However, instead of the old, oversimplified rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” why not adopt a revised golden rule that takes into account the differences between ourselves and other species? Maybe something like, “Do unto others as you think they would have you do unto them.” In other words, try to envision what the animals’ needs and self interests are and take into consideration how their lives in the wild are different from our own.

Empathy, the intellectual or emotional identification with another — or the ability to relate to others — is essential for maintaining ethical standards when photographing wildlife.

Last spring I watched from a distance as the annual gathering of noisy photographers was posted outside the entrance of a badger den. They were so deep in conversation and oblivious to their surroundings that none of them noticed as the mother badger finally made a break for it in hopes of procuring food for her young.

The day before, I had photographed the same badger den from across a road with a 600mm telephoto lens fitted with a 2X extender to bring the subject in closer without actually getting close. Because I remained on the opposite side of the road and well away from the den, quietly giving them the space they needed to engage in their activities and enjoy the sunny day, the badger and her young came and went freely, without paying me any notice.

.

The Poor Man’s Super-Telephoto Lens:

<< The lens of choice among the serious pro wildlife photographers I know seems to be the 600mm ƒ/4 super-telephoto. It’s great for subjects that won’t let you get close, is incredibly sharp, and autofocuses quickly and accurately. However, it costs over $7,000.

That being just a bit beyond my budget, when I really need “reach,” I turn my $1,200 300mm ƒ/4 lens into a 600mm ƒ/8 by attaching a $300 2x teleconverter between the lens and camera body.Also known as tele-extenders, teleconverters are available from the major lens manufacturers for their long lenses, and offer three major benefits.

First, as just cited, they’re an economical way to get superlong focal lengths. And they’re not just for the budget-challenged. Pros use them, too—a 1.4x converter turns that monster 600mm into an 840mm; a 2x converter, into a 1200mm.

The second benefit of the teleconverter is that it doesn’t change the lens’ minimum focusing distance. Add a 2x converter to a 300mm lens that focuses down to five feet, and you have a 600mm lens that focuses down to five feet. (For comparison, my camera manufacturer’s 600mm super-telephoto won’t focus closer than 18 feet unless you attach it to an extension tube; but then it won’t focus out to infinity.)

The third teleconverter benefit is lack of bulk. A 300mm lens with a 2x teleconverter is much more compact than a 600mm ƒ/4 super-telephoto lens. (A 600mm ƒ/8 prime lens also would be smaller than the 600mm ƒ/4, but currently no one makes a 600mm ƒ/8. >>

[Source: ‘The Poor Man’s Super-Telephoto’, 20090421, by Mike Stensvold, ^http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/gear/lenses/the-poor-mans-super-telephoto.html]

.

A national Park like Yellowstone can be the perfect place for photographing animals without causing them undue stress. Since they know they are safe from hunting within park boundaries, “game species” are not so distrustful of human presence.

Although many species are easily viewable from park roadways, they are much less concerned about vehicles than people approaching on foot. Staying in your car makes wildlife feel more comfortable, and your vehicle makes a great blind for photographing animals calmly going about their business. Some of my best photos have been taken out of the window of my rig.

Other examples of photographer misconduct include trimming away vegetation–that may conceal a nest or den from people and predators–to get a clearer photo, throwing food to attract animals, and the all-too-common habit of yelling or honking at an elk, a bison or a family of bears so they will look toward the camera.

By using empathy we can begin to recognize changes in behavior and respect the signals animals use to convey to us that we are irritating them or getting too close for their comfort.

Every year irresponsible photographers are gored by bison, trampled by moose, or charged by bears. When these animals are annoyed to the point that they feel the need to defend themselves, chances are they will suffer or die for it in the end. Thoughtless conduct can also force animals to leave their familiar surroundings, interrupt natural activities necessary for survival, or even separate mothers from their young.

.

Bull Elk

This bull elk was photographed from my vehicle in Jasper National Park, Alberta, using a telephoto lens

Photo © Jim Robertson, ^http://www.wildwatch.org/Binocular/bino01/empathy.html]

.

Outdoor Photographer magazine ran an article in January/February 2000 on “Tips for Photographing Eagles” with the sub-heading “A long lens, the right location and a sensitive approach can get you excellent images of these majestic birds”.

The author of the article, Bill Silliker, Jr. wrote, “If you don’t have a long lens, don’t push it. Ethical wildlife photography requires that we forego attempts to photograph wildlife when we’re not equipped for it or if the attempt might harass or somehow place the subject in jeopardy. Be satisfied with images that show an eagle in its habitat. Editors use those too.”

The other day a neighbour stopped by and, upon seeing the small herd of black-tailed deer who found refuge on my land, asked if I was a hunter. When I said, “No, I’m a wildlife photographer,” he shrugged and replied, “It’s all shooting.”

Well, yes and no.

The obvious, major difference is that the animals “shot” with a camera do not end up dead. But because there are similarities to hunting, many people approach wildlife photography with a similar mind-set. It’s laughable to see photographers in a national park camouflaged from head-to-toe, sometimes including face paint, photographing a bull elk as he calmly grazes alongside the road–fully aware of their presence. And I couldn’t count how many times I’ve seen tourists run right up to a bear, elk, bison, or moose with a tiny disposable camera to get their close-up “trophy” photo.

They seem to think it’s only fair–that they are entitled to get closer–since they don’t have a large telephoto for their camera. But if they were to examine their motives they would realize that their behaviour is not fair to the animal. Is their trophy more important than the well-being of the subject of their photo?

At the height of disregard, some photographers will use hounds fitted with radio collars to pursue and corner bears, bobcats, or cougars for close-up photos of these more elusive species. If they are “lucky”, they might even catch the animal snarling in response–just the way any number of hunting magazines like to portray them on their covers or in juicy, two-page fold-outs. But how would they feel if they had to flee for their lives, chased down by a pack of dogs until they were exhausted or treed, just so someone could get a picture of them?

Wildlife photography should not be thought of as a sport or challenge against nature, or against the animals who did not volunteer for the game. Would it be considered ethical to make sport of photographing unwilling human subjects?

Unethical practices of those who photograph wildlife for self-serving purposes have given the whole field a bad name. Bill McKibben, author of “The End of Nature” has proposed a moratorium on new wildlife photos, to prevent further aggravation of endangered animals. He argues there are plenty of photos already out there for use in prints and publications. As more incidents of unethical behaviour by photographers occur, the privilege of photographing wild animals will become more and more restricted.

Still, no amount of harassment or disruption of wildlife in any way justifies the increasingly popular use of game farms by so-called wildlife photographers.

Too often, the “wild” animal seen in a publication or promotional is actually a captive animal sentenced to life on a game farm. Game farms use high fences, costing upwards of $8,000.00 per mile, to keep their preferred, sometimes exotic species in. These fences also effectively keep the native migratory wildlife out, thereby taking up valuable habitat.

While many game farms profit directly from the hunting of animals in their enclosures, others appear relatively innocuous, charging only for public viewing and private photographic sessions with “wildlife models,” including crowd-pleasing kittens, cubs, or fawns bred specifically for that purpose. But as these animals get older and less photogenic, they are auctioned off as “surplus” to the highest bidders–a common practice of zoos as well. It is likely the same animals that appeared as cute babies on calendars, greeting cards, or other publications will end up a few years later at another game farm that does profit from the canned hunting of them.

Grizzly Bear
This sow grizzly bear was photographed with a 600mm telephoto

from a supervised Forest Service observation platform along Fish Creek, in Southeast Alaska.

Photo © Jim Robertson

^http://www.wildwatch.org/Binocular/bino01/empathy.html]

.

Most photographers and photo editors do not differentiate between wild or captive animals when selling and publishing images. Using photos shot at game farms supports those who profit from exploiting animals by keeping them captive to serve as models for photographers, entertainment for tourists, or targets for trophy hunters. At the same time, these photos set a new, unnatural standard for closeness and intimacy with animals that the public expects to see in every future image.

And while on the subject of ethics, how ethical is it to top off a day of photographing waterfowl or ungulates with a dinner of poultry or red meat?

Don’t all living beings deserve our compassion and respect?

I had long heard that animals feel less threatened by someone who does not eat meat, but I wondered how long a human could survive without consuming the flesh of others. After six years as a vegan, I can attest to the fact that wild animals are not as fearful of me now, and that saying “no” to animal protein is healthier and easier than I ever would have imagined. >>

Tags: ethical wildlife photography, species tolerance zone, wildlife photography
Posted in Badgers, Bears, Blue Mountains (AU), Ph03 Ecocentric Ethics, Reptiles, Threats from Tourism and Recreation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Rural Fire Service strategy misguided

Friday, March 30th, 2012

This article was initially written by this editor and published in the Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper on 20051005 as a letter to the editor, entitled ‘RFS strategy misguided‘.

19th Century heritage-listed ‘Six Foot Track’

..bulldozed by the Rural Fire Service in July 2005, widened into a convenient Fire Trail for its fire truck crews.

.
It has been revealed that the June bulldozing or grading of the Six Foot Track near Megalong Creek (Blue Mountains, New South Wales) was a mere drop in the Rural Fire Service (RFS) Bushfire Mitigation Programme.

Across the Blue Mountains, some twenty natural reserves including the Six Foot Track were targeted under the RFS 2004-05 Fire Trail Strategy:

Edith Falls
McMahons Point
Back Creek
Cripple Creek
Plus some 95 hectares inside the Blue Mountains National Park.

Read: [>RFS Fire Trail Policy]

Read: [>RFS Fire Trail Classification Guidelines]

According to the Australian Government’s (then) Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) website, some $151,195 was granted to the RFS in the Blue Mountains alone, for it to bulldoze and burn 144 hectares of native bushland under the euphemism of “addressing bushfire mitigation risk priorities” (Ed: Read ‘bush arson‘)

‘The Six Foot Track Conservation and Management Plan 1997, Vol II’ lists numerous vulnerable species of fauna recorded near Megalong Creek – the Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Clyptorhynchus lathami), Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus), Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus).

Glossy Black-Cockatoo

[Source: Dubbo Field Naturalist & Conservation Society
http://www.speednet.com.au/~abarca/black-cockatoo.htm]

.

Giant Burrowing Frog

[Source: Frogs.org.au, ^http://frogs.org.au/community/viewtopic.php?t=4876&sid=0dc45ef08e12cd5e1d27524bca2269f9]

.

Spotted-tailed Quoll

(Dasyurus maculatus)

Blue Mountains top order predator, competing with the Dingo

.

The RFS contractors wouldn’t have had a clue if they were within 100 metres or 1 metre of rare, vulnerable or threatened species.

The RFS is not exempt from destroying important ecological habitat; rather it is required to have regard to the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD).

Read: >RFS Policy 2-03 Ecologically Sustainable Development

The ‘Rationale‘ of this RFS ESD policy states at Clause 1.2:

‘The Bush Fire Coordinating Committee, under the Rural Fires Act 1997 Sec 3 (d), is required to have regard to ESD as outlined in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, which sets out the following principles:

a) The precautionary principle namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by:

i. careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment, and
ii. an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.

b) Inter-generational equity namely, that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations

c) Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in all decisions.

d) Recognising the economic values that the natural environment provides. The natural environment has values that are often hard to quantify but provide a benefit to the entire community. By recognising that the natural environment does have significant economic and social values we can improve decision making for the present and future generations.’

.

Yet the RFS policy on hazard reduction is woefully loose in the ‘Bushfire Co-ordinating Committee Policy 2 /03 on ESD‘ – which (on paper) advocates protecting environmental values and ensuring that ESD commitments are adopted and adhered to by contractors.

Experience now confirms this policy is nothing more than ‘greenwashing’. The RFS wouldn’t know what environmental values were if they drove their fire truck into a Blkue Mountains upland swamp. There is not one ecologist among them.

While the critical value of dedicated RFS volunteer fire-fighters fighting fires is without question, what deserves questioning is the unsustainable response of the RFS ‘old guard’ to fire trails and hazard reduction with token regard for sensitive habitat. Repeated bushfire research confirms that bushfires are mostly now caused by:

Bush arson (hazard reduction included, escaped or otherwise)
More residential communities encroaching upon bushland.

Under the ‘Blue Mountains Bushfire Management Committee Bushfire Risk Management Plan’ (Ed: their bureaucratic name), key objectives are patently ignored:

‘Ensure that public and private land owners and occupiers understand their bushfire management responsibilities’
‘Ensure that the community is well informed about bushfire protection measures and prepared for bushfire events through Community Fireguard programs’
‘Manage bushfires for the protection and conservation of the natural, cultural, scenic and recreational features , including tourism values, of the area’.

Instead, the Rural Fire Service is content to look busy by burning and bulldozing native bushland. The RFS actively demonises native vegetation as a ‘fuel hazard‘, in the much the same way that ignorant colonists of the 18th and 19th centuries demonised Australia’s unique wildlife as ‘vermin‘ and ‘game‘.

.

Forests NSW (government’s industrial logger of NSW remnant forests).

(Forests NSW did not publish the area burnt, only the cost. As a rule of thumb use $3000/square km)

Bush Fire Management Committee	Reserve / Activity Name	NSW Allocation
Clarence Zone	Dalmorton SF	$30,000
Future Forests	Swan	$20,050
Future Forests	Tindall	$10,680
Future Forests	Tooloom	$10,425
Future Forests	Mazzer	$7,341
Future Forests	Kungurrabah	$4,435
Future Forests	Morpeth Park	$3,773
Future Forests	Loughnan	$3,155
Future Forests	Inglebar	$3,000
Future Forests	Lattimore	$2,604
Future Forests	Byrne	$1,755
Future Forests	Ziull 4	$1,677
Future Forests	Lejag	$1,670
Future Forests	Ziull 2	$1,600
Future Forests	Bates	$1,563
Future Forests	Ziull 3	$1,454
Future Forests	Envirocom	$1,410
Future Forests	Morgan	$1,361
Future Forests	McNamara	$1,279
Future Forests	Neaves	$967
Future Forests	Zuill	$872
Future Forests	Boyle	$807
Future Forests	Fitzpatrick	$791
Future Forests	Morrow	$785
Future Forests	Morrow	$785
Future Forests	Morrow	$785
Future Forests	Wallwork	$665
Future Forests	Smith	$665
Future Forests	Wilson	$622
Future Forests	Jarramarumba	$600
Future Forests	Hession	$597
Future Forests	Edwards	$563
Future Forests	Maunder	$558
Future Forests	Kuantan	$515
Future Forests	Billins	$484
Future Forests	Cox	$475
Future Forests	Paterson	$461
Future Forests	Gladys	$415
Future Forests	O’Keefe	$371
Future Forests	Woodcock	$369
Future Forests	Pratten	$346
Future Forests	Truswell	$323
Future Forests	Divine	$323
Future Forests	Hastings	$323
Future Forests	White	$300
Future Forests	Miller	$300
Future Forests	Koop	$300
Future Forests	Lacy	$277
Future Forests	Nosrac	$277
Future Forests	Tully	$277
Future Forests	Baker	$277
Future Forests	Yaganegi	$277
Future Forests	Siezowski	$254
Future Forests	Zuill	$254
Future Forests	Atcheson	$254
Future Forests	Dissevelt	$254
Future Forests	Hoy	$254
Future Forests	Woods	$254
Future Forests	Dawson	$254
Future Forests	Hagan	$254
Future Forests	Skelly	$231
Future Forests	Robards	$231
Future Forests	Maunder	$231
Future Forests	Day	$231
Future Forests	O’Connell	$231
Future Forests	Kompara	$231
Future Forests	Carmen	$231
Future Forests	Maurer	$231
Future Forests	Cunin	$208
Future Forests	GCC	$208
Future Forests	White	$208
Future Forests	Hayer	$208
Future Forests	Southgate	$208
Future Forests	Peck	$208
Greater Taree	Kiwarrak SF	$40,000
Hastings	Cowarra SF	$30,000
Hastings	Caincross SF	$4,000
Hume	Clearing fire trails	$100,000
Hume	New FT	$6,000
Hunter	Pokolbin SF	$13,600
Hunter	Myall River SF	$12,800
Hunter	Myall River SF	$12,800
Hunter	Heaton SF	$12,400
Hunter	Bulahdelah SF	$6,100
Hunter	Watagan SF	$3,200
Hunter	Awaba SF	$3,200
Hunter	Myall River SF	$3,100
Macquarie	Warrengong	$16,250
Macquarie	Vulcan & Gurnang	$11,519
Macquarie	Kinross SF	$8,800
Macquarie	Mount David	$6,101
Macquarie	Newnes SF	$5,199
Macquarie	Printing 25 fire atlas’	$2,048
Macquarie	Black Rock Ridge	$447
Mid-Nth Coast – Taree	Knorrit SF	$36,000
Mid-Nth Coast – Taree	Yarratt SF	$16,000
Mid-Nth Coast – Wauchope	Boonanghi SF	$37,000
Mid-Nth Coast – Wauchope	Northern Break	$9,000
Mid-Nth Coast – Wauchope	Caincross SF	$3,000
Mid-Nth Coast – Wauchope	Western Break	$2,000
Monaro	Clearing fire trails	$114,685
North East	Thumb Creek SF	$46,000
North East	Candole SF	$29,535
North East	Various State Forests	$20,000
North East	Mt Belmore SF	$12,115
North East	Candole SF	$8,900
North East	Lower Bucca SF	$5,500
North East	All North Region	$3,300
North East	Wild Cattle SF	$3,000
North East	Orara East SF	$1,900
Northern -Casino	Barragunda	$11,522
Northern -Casino	Yaraldi 2003	$8,847
Northern -Casino	Yaraldi 2004	$3,207
Richmond Valley	Bates	$20,000
Richmond Valley	Whiporie SF	$13,154
Richmond Valley	Swanson	$12,000
Richmond Valley	McNamara	$10,180
Richmond Valley	Whiporie SF	$9,582
Southern	Pollwombra FT	$6,360
Southern-Eden	Various – whole district	$112,019
Tamworth	Nundle SF	$40,000
Walcha	Nowendoc SF	$30,000
Walcha	Styx River SF	$20,000
		$1,073,482

i.e. Approximately an area 20km x 20km

.

NSW Department of Lands (what native vegetation’s left).

Bush Fire Management Committee	Reserve / Activity Name	Treatment Area Ha / Other	Treatment Area (km2)
Baulkham Hills	Porters Rd / Cranstons Rd		5
Baulkham Hills	Porters Rd / Cranstons Rd (2)		4
Baulkham Hills	Pauls Road Trail		5
Baulkham Hills	Mount View Trail		1
Baulkham Hills	Idlewild		2
Baulkham Hills	Maroota Tracks Trail		7
Baulkham Hills	Yoothamurra Trail		1
Baulkham Hills	Kellys Arm Trail		3
Baulkham Hills	Dargle Ridge Trail		5
Baulkham Hills	Dargle Trail		3
Baulkham Hills	Days Road Trail		3
Baulkham Hills	Dickinsons Trail		6
Baulkham Hills	Fingerboard Trail		3
Baulkham Hills	Floyds Road Trail		8
Baulkham Hills	Neichs Road Trail		4
Bega	Eden Strategic Fire Trail		3
Bega	Illawambera Fire Trail		1
Bega	Merimbula/Turu Beach Strategic Protection		2
Bega	Yankees Gap		2
Bega	Millingandi Special Protection (Trail)		1
Bega	Wallagoot Strategic Protection (Trail)		1.2
Bega	South Eden Strategic Protection (Trail)		1
Bega	Merimbula/Pambula Strategic Protection (APZ)		1
Bega	Pacific St Tathra		0.5
Bland	Bland Villages (FTM)		2
Bland	Water Tower Reserve FTM		3
Blue Mountains	Cripple Creek Fire Trail Stage 2		5
Blue Mountains	Cripple Creek Fire Trail Complex		5
Blue Mountains	Caves Creek Trail		0.4
Blue Mountains	Edith Falls Trail		2
Blue Mountains	Boronia Rd – Albert Rd Trails		1
Blue Mountains	Perimeter Trail – North Hazelbrook		1.5
Blue Mountains	McMahons Point Trail – Kings Tableland		7
Blue Mountains	Back Creek Fire Trail		3.2
Blue Mountains	Mitchell’s Creek Fire Trail		3.5
Bombala	Gibraltar Ridge Fire Trail		11
Bombala	Burnt Hut Fire Trail		5
Bombala	Merriangah East Fire Trail		12
Bombala	Bombala Towns & Villages (Trails)		10
Campbelltown	St Helens Park – Wedderburn Rd (Barriers)		0.3
Campbelltown	Barrier / Gate
Campbelltown	Riverview Rd Fire Trail		0.65
Canobolas	Calula Range FTM
Canobolas	Spring Glen Estate FTM
Cessnock	Neath South West Fire Trail		2
Cessnock	Neath South East Fire Trail		1.5
Cessnock	Neath North Fire Trail (2)		1
Cessnock	Gates – Asset Protection Zones
Cessnock	Signs – Asset Protection Zones
Cessnock	Signs – Fire Trails
Cessnock	Kearsley Fire Trail		0.5
Cessnock	Neath – South (Trail)		4
Cessnock	Neath – North (Trail)		2
Clarence Valley	Bowling Club Fire Trail		1
Clarence Valley	Brooms Head Fire Trail		0.2
Clarence Valley	Ilarwill Village		0.3
Cooma-Monaro	Chakola Fire Trail		21
Cooma-Monaro	Good Good Fire Trail		12
Cooma-Monaro	Inaloy Fire Trail		19
Cooma-Monaro	Cowra Creek Fire Trail		4
Cooma-Monaro	David’s Fire Trail		2.1
Cooma-Monaro	Clear Hills Fire Trail		5
Cooma-Monaro	Mt Dowling Fire Trail		16
Cooma-Monaro	Towneys Ridge Fire Trail		6
Cunningham	Warialda Periphery 2		20
Cunningham	Upper Bingara Fire Trail
Dungog	Dungog Fire Trail Signs
Far North Coast	Byrangary Fire Trail		1
Far North Coast	Main Arm Fire Trail (NC67)		2
Far North Coast	Burringbar Fire Trail (NC69)		1
Far North Coast	Mill Rd Fire Trail (NC95)		1
Far North Coast	Broken Head Fire Trail (NC68)		0.5
Far North Coast	New Brighton Fire Trail (NC44)		0.5
Far North Coast	Mooball Spur Fire Trail		1
Far North Coast	Palmwoods Fire Trail (NC06)		0.5
Gloucester	Coneac Trail		6
Gloucester	Moores Trail		6
Gloucester	Mt Mooney Fire Trail		6
Gosford District	Signs – Fire Trails
Great Lakes	Ebsworth Fire Trail		1
Great Lakes	Tuncurry High Fire Trail		0.6
Great Lakes	Monterra Ave Trail – Hawks Nest		0.7
Greater Argyle	Browns Rd Komungla		12
Greater Argyle	Greater Argyle Fire Trail Maintenance
Greater Argyle	Cookbundoon Fire Trail		2
Greater Taree District	Tinonee St Road Reserve		0.25
Greater Taree District	Beach St SFAZ – Wallabi Point		0.35
Greater Taree District	Sth Woodlands Dr – SFAZ		1.3
Greater Taree District	Cedar Party Rd – Taree		2
Hawkesbury District	Sargents Road (2) ?tenure		0.75
Hawkesbury District	Parallel Trail (2)		2.5
Hawkesbury District	Parallel Trail (1)		1.1
Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai	Tunks Ridge, Dural		1
Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai	Radnor & Cairnes Fire Trail		0.5
Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai	Binya Cl, Hornsby Heights		1.5
Shellharbour District	Saddleback – Hoddles Trail		3
Shellharbour District	Rough Range Trail		1
Lake Macquarie District	Kilaben Bay Fire Trail		1.5
Lake Macquarie District	Gates – Access Management
Lake Macquarie District	Signs – APZ
Lake Macquarie District	Signs – Fire Trails
Lithgow	Wilsons Glen Trail		6.1
Lithgow	Kanimbla Fire Trail No 314		7.8
Lithgow	Camels Back Trail No 312		4.5
Lithgow	Crown Creek Trail No 206		7
Lithgow	Capertee Common Trail No 203		3
Lower Hunter Zone	Access Infrastructure – All Districts
Lower North Coast	Cabbage Tree Lane Fire Trail, Kempsey		1.5
Lower North Coast	Bullocks Quarry Fire Trail		0.66
Lower North Coast	Perimeter Protection, Main St, Eungai Creek, Nambucca		0.6
Mid North Coast	Urunga Lagoon, Bellingen		4
Mid North Coast	Wenonah Head, Bellingen		4
Mudgee	Munro’s Fire Trail		24
Mudgee	Munro’s Fire Trail		5.25
Penrith	Londonderry/Castlereagh		6
Port Stephens	Bobs Farm Fire Trails		4
Port Stephens	Salamander Way Fire Trail		1.5
Port Stephens	Gan Gan Hill West Fire Trail		1.2
Port Stephens	Nelson Bay – Gan Gan Hill (Trail)		1.5
Port Stephens	Taylors Beach Fire Trail		1
Port Stephens	Nelson Bay – Wallawa Rd (SFAZ)		0.7
Port Stephens	Taylors Beach East Fire Trail		3.5
Port Stephens	Nelson Bay – Wallawa Rd (Gates)
Port Stephens	Port Stephens Fire Trail Signs
Port Stephens	Corlette – Salamander Way (Trail)		1
Shoalhaven	APZ Access Works
Snowy River	Southern Boundary Fire Trail		3
Snowy River	Somme Valley Fire Trail		5
Sutherland District	Forbes Creek North Trail		1.3
Sutherland District	Still Creek Complex (Trail)		3.8
Sutherland District	Mannikin Trail		1.5
Sutherland District	Viburnum Trail		0.8
Sutherland District	Mill Creek Complex		2.6
Sutherland District	Loftus Creek Complex		1.9
Sutherland District	Cranberry Trail		0.8
Sutherland District	Turella Trail		0.8
Sutherland District	Freemantle Trail		0.4
Sutherland District	Illaroo Trail		0.7
Sutherland District	Yala East Trail		0.9
Sutherland District	Bunyan Fire Trail		1.2
Sutherland District	Rosewell Service Trail		0.5
Sutherland District	Belarada Service Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Belbowrie Service Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Leawarra Fire Trail		0.9
Sutherland District	McKenzie Service Trail		0.7
Sutherland District	Walsh Close Trail		0.7
Sutherland District	Yala West Trail		0.7
Sutherland District	Barnes Cres Service Trail		0.6
Sutherland District	Illumba Trail		0.5
Sutherland District	Penrose Trail		0.5
Sutherland District	Tatler Place Trail		0.5
Sutherland District	Torumba Service Trail		0.5
Sutherland District	Friendship Trail		0.4
Sutherland District	Kippax – Rosewall Trail		0.4
Sutherland District	Tallarook Service Trail		0.4
Sutherland District	Billa Service Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Chestnut Trail		0.2
Sutherland District	Croston Rd Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Kingswood Rd Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Roebourne Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Whimbrel Service Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Shearwater Trail		0.1
Tamworth	Moore Creek Dam Reserve		3.5
Tamworth	Moore Creek Dam Reserve		1
Tumut	Bundarbo Fire Trail (Stage 1)		30
Tumut	Yammatree Reserve		2
Tumut	Thomas Boyd Track Head		2
Tumut	Tumut Bush Common		5
Tumut	Batlow Hill		2
Tumut	Rimmers Ridge – Adelong
Tumut	Bangadang		7
Upper Lachlan	Upper Lachlan Fire Trail Maintenance
Upper Lachlan	Isabella Fire Trail		10
Wagga Wagga	Silvatite Reserve (Trails)		5
Wagga Wagga	Wagga Wagga Towns & Villages (Trails)		10
Wagga Wagga	Kyeamba Gap		4
Wagga Wagga	San Isadore		3
Warringah/Pittwater	Sandy Trail		0.1
Warringah/Pittwater	Lovett Bay Trail		2.5
Warringah/Pittwater	Elvina Bay Trail		1.5
Warringah/Pittwater	Aumuna Cooyong Trail		0.2
Wingecarribee	P3 Fire Trail		6
Wingecarribee	Weir Fire trail		3.8
Wingecarribee	Lukes Fire trail		0.1
Wollondilly	Bargo Weir Fire Trail		10
Wyong District	YMCA North / South Link Fire Trail		2
Wyong District	YMCA South / Kanangra Dr Fire Trail		2
Wyong District	Lake Munmorah Fire Trails		3.25
Wyong District	Hyles St Fire Trail, Chittaway Pt		0.1
Wyong District	Big “T” and YMCA Link Fire Trails		1.5
Wyong District	Lake Road Fire Trail, Chittaway Point		0.1
Wyong District	Big “T” Fire Trail – Crangan Bay		1.1
Wyong District	Wyong APZ Signs
Wyong District	Lake Road Fire Trail, Tuggerah		1
Wyong District	Doyalson North, 219-225 Pacific Hway (Trail)		0.8
Yass Valley	Yass Valley Fire Trail Maintenance
			565.16

i.e. Approximately an area 24km x 24km

. .

Tags: Blue Mountains National Park, Bulldozing Six Foot Track, bush arson, Bush Fire Coordinating Committee, Bushfire Mitigation Programme, controlled burning, Department of Transport and Regional Services, DOTARS, Ecologically Sustainable Development, Fire Trail Strategy, Giant Burrowing Frog, Glossy Black-Cockatoo, hazard reduction, Megalong Creek, prescribed burning, RFS, Rural Fire Service, Six Foot Track, spotted-tailed quoll
Posted in Birds (Australian), Blue Mountains (AU), Quolls, Reptiles, Threats from Bushfire, Threats from Greenwashing | 1 Comment »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Nippon Paper’s ‘Reflex’ brand still “pure”?

Friday, August 26th, 2011

Who does one believe?…

Greenwash Tick

.

Tuesday 23-Aug-2011:

‘Paper manufacturer loses green credentials’

by Liz Hobday, ABC News, 20110823, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-23/paper-manufacturer-loses-green-credentials/2851982/?site=melbourne, accessed 20110825]

.
The Wilderness Society says Australian Paper cannot meet environmental standards. The manufacturer of Reflex paper has lost part of its international environmental certification, after withdrawing from an audit of its wood supplies.

The Forest Stewardship Council was auditing Australian Paper, to check that the wood used to make Reflex paper is not sourced from high conservation value forests.

Luke Chamberlain from the Wilderness Society says the company withdrew from the process, because it cannot meet environmental standards.

“The makers of Reflex paper get their wood from the Victorian State Government native forest logging arm VicForests,” he said.

“VicForests log in endangered species habitat. They log old growth forests in East Gippsland and the central highlands”

Australian Paper says its products are not sourced from high conservations value forests threatened by logging.

Shaun Scallan from Australian Paper says they withdrew because the audit process changed while it was underway.

“We pulled out because of a change in the definition of part of the standard late in the piece, which did not allow us enough time to then satisfy that changed definition,” he said.

.

Meanwhile the same Shaun Scallan of Australian Paper just the day prior on Monday 22 August 2011 posts his media release:

‘Australian Paper retains FSC Chain of Custody Certification’…?

by Shaun Scallan, Australian Paper, 20110822, ^http://australianpaper.com.au/media/2478/AP%20FSC%20audit%20release%20FINAL%20Aug%2022_2011.pdf, accessed 20110825

‘Australian Paper has successfully retained Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Chain of Custody certification (FSC-C002059) in its latest audit. Auditor Rainforest Alliance confirmed that under the certification Australian Paper may continue to produce FSC-certified product based on sourcing of material from FSC-certified operations and recycled content, as allowed under the FSC rules for Mixed and Recycled product.

“We are pleased to have retained our FSC Chain of Custody certification,” Australian Paper CEO Mr Jim Henneberry said.
“Australian Paper has held Chain of Custody certification since 2006. However, we have decided to remove the Controlled Wood component from our certification at this time as there has been uncertainty around the interpretation of key elements of the standards.”

“Advice received by Rainforest Alliance from FSC International around the interpretation of the Standard was received after the physical audit had been completed. This left insufficient time for us to address and so we elected to withdraw Controlled Wood from our certification.” Mr Henneberry said.

Australian Paper remains committed to ensuring that fibre supplies come from internationally recognised, third party certified sources and also regards the Australian Forestry Standard and PEFC as benchmark certifications under this policy. The majority of wood supplied to Australian Paper is certified to the Australian Forestry Standard.

“We are also continuing to consult with a wide range of stakeholders as part of our Future Fibre Strategy review,” Mr Henneberry said.
“It is vital that we achieve the best balance between the environment, the health of regional communities and our ongoing competitiveness. We look forward to sharing outcomes from this review in due course.”

.

Meanwhile, we have the boss of Nippon Paper (the Japanese company that owns the misnomer ‘Australian Paper’) declaring Nippon Paper is going gang-busters to become a top global pulp and paper company…(at any cost?)

‘Since I was appointed president of Nippon Paper Group, Inc. in 2008, I have been pursuing “growth-oriented management.” This means exploring every possibility with a consistently positive stance, actively seizing opportunities, achieving the growth needed to become one of the top pulp and paper companies worldwide, as set out in the Group Vision 2015, and developing corporate value that meets the expectations of all stakeholders.’ ~ President of Nippon Paper Group, Yoshio Haga. [Source: ^http://www.np-g.com/e/about/president.html]

.

Meanwhile, the stated Charter of Nippon Paper Group includes:

‘6. Active involvement with environmental issues assures that…’

.

‘We shall promote afforestation projects, to create and make effective use of sustainable forest resources.’
‘We shall promote energy conservation, the use of wastepaper and other measures to effectively use resources that are limited in quantity.’
‘We shall manage and reduce all types of discharge and waste generated in the course of corporate activities.’
‘We shall research and develop manufacturing technologies, and products and services that are in harmony with the environment.’

[Source: ^http://www.np-g.com/e/about/charter.html#shead2]

Editor: It is suspicious when a Japanese company is more than content to log and irrevocably destroy another country’s old growth forests, while Japan’s own old growth forests around Mt Fuji remain sacrosanct.

‘In spite of the abundant natural resources, logging is not commonly practiced in the forests of Japan. Japan Forests are venerated and protected since they provide essential soil cover and help in water conservation. All Species are encouraged to grow in the Forests in Japan , from the broad-leaved deciduous to the evergreen coniferous types. There are also many forests which grow near volcanic areas, destroyed and then rejuvenated every time an eruption occurs. The Aokigahara Forest at the base of Mount Fuji is one such forest. Locals as well as tourist camp, trek and hike through these dense forests of Japan to explore their unusual natural beauty.

‘Some Japan Forests are designated as Sacred Forests . These forests generally contain an ancient religious Shrine, usually worshiping the Shinto religion and are protected from trespassing and destruction. These forest shrines are still venerated as national treasures.

Some of the sacred forests in Japan are-

The Forest of the Yahiko Jinja has many trees like the Cedar, Cypress and Oaks. The Shrine has a sacred Chinquapin tree as well.
The Forest of Atsuta Jinja is an important Shinto Shrine, housing one the three important Shinto relics – the holy sword of Kusanagi-no-tsurugi. The forest has evergreens like the Japanese Camellia Sakaki, camphor trees, Ilex and Japanese Honeysuckle.
The Forest of Kashima Jingu has over 800 species of trees like varieties of Cedar, Fir and Oak. The Kashima Jingu is an important shrine of the Kanto Area. The forest has been designated as a Wildlife Protection area for the rare birds in the region.
The Forest of Shimogamo Jinja covers over 495 hectares and has many different species of deciduous trees like the Zelkova, the Elm and the Hackberry. The Shrine itself has 53 buildings which have been designated as National Heritage Architecture.
The Forest of the Kirishima Jingu covers and area of 887 hectares. Located near the Mount Kirishima Volcano, the forest has been destroyed and then recovered for over 60 times.
The Forest of the Kasuga Taisha is home to the beautiful podocarpus Nagi. The forest also contains many species of evergreens and shrubs. Trees like the Kasuga, the Andromeda and the Ichii also grow there. People from all over Japan visit the venerated shrine in the quarterly pilgrimages.‘

[Source: ^http://www.mapsofworld.com/japan/japan-tourism/forests-in-japan.html]

Japan’s sacred Aokigahara Forest

.

Ethics question for Yoshio Haga (President of Nippon Paper Group):

What moral right do the Japanese have to consider their own native old growth Aokigahara Forest more sacred than Australia’s sacred native old growth forests such as those across East Gippland?

Stump of Brown Mountain’s sacred 600 year old Mountain Ash old growth tree.

It was logged by VicForests in November 2008 for Nippon Paper’s Reflex Paper.

.

In light of VicForests recent civil prosecution in the Victorian Supreme Court, Nippon Paper Group’s association with VicForests calls into question the reputation of Nippon Paper Group and its brand Reflex Paper:

‘VicForests has been stopped from harvesting certain coupes in the Brown Mountain forest in East Gippsland containing old growth forest

– habitat for rare and threatened species – until the completion of steps implementing the precautionary principle.’

.

‘Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests – The precautionary principle in action’

22 November 2010:

[Source: Blake Dawson (Lawyers), ‘Environment Matters’, 20111122, ^http://www.blakedawson.com/Templates/Publications/x_article_content_page.aspx?id=60457, accessed 20110825]

.

In Brief:.

‘The Victorian Supreme Court decision in Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests firmly embeds the approach to the precautionary principle laid down in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006).’
‘The case makes it clear that the precautionary principle can be the subject of an enforceable obligation.’
‘The case also makes it clear that the precautionary principle applies both at the strategic and operational stages of a project or undertaking.’
‘The fact that VicForests complied with its forestry approvals was not enough to satisfy the Court that it had met its obligations with regard to the precautionary principle.’

‘In Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests [2010] VSC 335 conservation group Environment East Gippsland (EEG) won a landmark injunction against VicForests, a state-owned timber business with responsibility for commercial timber harvesting in Victoria’s state forests.

VicForests has been stopped from harvesting certain coupes in the Brown Mountain forest in East Gippsland containing old growth forest – habitat for rare and threatened species – until the completion of steps implementing the precautionary principle.

In this case, Justice Osborn of the Supreme Court of Victoria undertook a thorough analysis of the application of the precautionary principle in the context of a detailed legislative regime aimed at balancing biodiversity protection and commercial timber harvesting. The case embeds the approach to the precautionary principle laid down by Chief Justice Preston of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 67 NSWLR 256.’

The lead-up to the litigation

‘The Brown Mountain forests in Victoria’s East Gippsland contain old growth forests and provide habitat for rare and threatened species such as the Powerful Owl, the Spotted-tailed Quoll (mainland Australia’s largest marsupial carnivore) and the Long-footed Potoroo. However, these areas are also amongst the most productive timber harvesting forests in Victoria and play a crucial role in Victoria’s sustainable timber industry.

In 2006, the Victorian State Government committed to increasing the conservation parks and reserves within the broader Brown Mountain area. Nevertheless, in 2008 commercial logging in the Brown Mountain area began.

After numerous studies of the area indicated the presence of important threatened and rare species, EEG requested the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings, to make an interim conservation order to conserve critical habitat of the endangered Long-footed Potoroo, Spot-tailed Quoll, Sooty Owl, Powerful Owl and Orbost Spiny Crayfish at Brown Mountain. The Minister did not grant a conservation order, but instead increased the conservation area surrounding Brown Mountain.

Having failed to obtain undertakings from VicForests that it would not proceed to log the Brown Mountain coupes, EEG sought interlocutory injunctive relief. An interlocutory injunction restraining logging was granted by Justice Forrest on 14 September 2009 (see our article Environmental litigation heats up with some significant wins for public interest litigants in our 2 October 2010 edition of Environment Matters ), pending the outcome of the full proceedings before Justice Osborn in the Supreme Court of Victoria.’

The legislative regime

‘Logging of state forests in Victoria is regulated by a complex scheme of legislation, codes of practice, management plans and procedures, described by Osborn J as “labyrinthine”. The principal legislation includes the Forests Act 1958 (Vic) (Forests Act), Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 (Vic) (SFT Act), Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic) and Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (Vic).’

Responsibilities for timber harvesting and forestry management

‘VicForests is a state-owned corporation, established in 2004 to undertake the harvesting of timber in Victoria’s state forests. The Secretary to the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) has overarching responsibility for managing state forests and timber harvesting within forests under the Forests Act.’

Legal challenge

‘EEG sought an injunction restraining VicForests from harvesting four coupes at Brown Mountain containing old growth forest. It also sought declarations that timber harvesting within the coupes by VicForests in accordance with the current forestry regime would be unlawful.

EEG argued that the current conservation measures for the Brown Mountain coupes did not meet the requirements of the regulatory system, which addresses the preservation of conservation values and in particular the protection of endangered species. EEG also argued that VicForests had failed to implement the precautionary principle.

VicForests took issue with EEG’s standing to sue. Further, it denied the presence of a number of endangered species and argued that the logging of the Brown Mountain coupes would take place under a legislative framework that adequately protects endangered species and would, therefore, be lawful. It also argued that it was DSE’s responsibility to stipulate any further requirements for habitat protection in accordance with the regulatory regime.’

EEG’s standing

‘Following the settled High Court authority that standing to bring such proceedings depends on the plaintiff’s “special interest” in the subject matter of the litigation (Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (2000) 200 CLR 591), Osborn J was satisfied that EEG had a relevant “special interest” because:

EEG uses the coupes to a greater degree than the general public (for example, the group has a “Valley of the Giants Old Growth Forests Walk” through the affected coupes);
EEG’s predecessor was involved in the consultative process for the formulation of the applicable forest management plan; and
the government has previously recognised EEG’s status as a body representing this sector of the public interest.’

.

The precautionary principle [Ed: once again]

.

‘The VicForests case firmly embeds in Australian environmental jurisprudence the approach to the precautionary principle laid down by Chief Justice Preston of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 67 NSWLR 256 (Telstra). Justice Osborn’s decision in VicForests is the first Supreme Court application of the Telstra principles.

The precautionary principle is integrated throughout the Victorian forestry regime’s many instruments.

Following Preston CJ’s two-fold test in Telstra, Osborn J stressed that the precautionary principle is a test of common sense. There must be:

a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage; and
scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage.

Justice Osborn stated:

Once both of these conditions or thresholds are satisfied, a precautionary measure may be taken to avert the anticipated threat of environmental damage, but it should be proportionate … [The] degree of precaution appropriate will depend on the combined effect of the seriousness of the threat and the degree of uncertainty.

It is a “wherever practicable” test.

In practice, this meant that once the two-fold test was satisfied by EEG, VicForests had the onus of proving that the threat posed by logging the coupes did not exist or was negligible. Because it could not do this, the question then became:

whether the threat was able to be addressed by adaptive management measures (in this case the requirement for surveys and management zone reviews); and
whether the measure alleged to be required (here the permanent injunction against logging the coupes) was proportionate to the threat in issue.

Justice Osborn carefully examined the legislative regime and held that it is not intended that VicForests only apply the precautionary principle at the strategic planning stage:

VicForests is specifically required to apply it [the precautionary principle] having regard to the results of monitoring and research as they come to light during operations. … The requirements of the precautionary principle fall to be considered in the light of the whole of the evidence bearing on these matters as it now is and not as it was at the time VicForests completed planning.

Justice Osborn stressed, however, that the precautionary principle sits within a wider statutory regime that takes into account principles of sustainable development.

He held that unless VicForests complied with the requirements of the applicable Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act Statements and with conditions stated in the relevant allocation order (under the Forests Act) and the Timber Release Plan (under the SFT Act), logging at Brown Mountain would be unlawful.

This meant that VicForests could not rely on its current approvals to log the coupes because DSE had not, for example, changed zonings in the coupes to reflect the presence of threatened species. VicForests had an ongoing, active duty to apply the precautionary principle, which included responding to new information as it became available.

Importantly, Osborn J stressed that the precautionary principle can be the subject of an enforceable obligation.’

Outcome

‘Justice Osborn ordered that VicForests stop harvesting until various measures had been completed to respond to the detection of endangered species and to implement a precautionary approach with respect to their potential extinction. The required measures included:

creating or amending special management zones, special protection zones and retained habitat areas to protect the Long-footed Potoroo, Greater Gliders and Yellow-bellied Gliders (as relevant);
undertaking further surveys for the Giant Burrowing Frog, Large Brown Tree Frog and Spotted-tailed Quoll; and
completing a current review of the Powerful Owl and Sooty Owl Management Areas,

to the satisfaction of the Director, Biodiversity Policy and Programs, DSE.

The difficulty for the Court in formulating its orders was that the power to act on the evidence of rare and endangered species and implement the required legislative and policy changes lies not with VicForests, against whom the injunction was sought, but with DSE.

Justice Osborn overcame this difficulty by stopping VicForests from logging until certain actions are undertaken, these actions being DSE responsibilities. VicForests had maintained throughout proceedings that it would comply with any changes to the regulatory regime made by DSE, and this was accepted by the Court.

Significance of the decision

This case firmly embeds the approach to the precautionary principle laid down by Chief Justice Preston in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 67 NSWLR 256.

Justice Osborn’s decision makes it clear that:

The precautionary principle can be the subject of an enforceable obligation.
Parties having an obligation to apply the precautionary principle cannot demonstrate compliance with the principle solely through departmental approval of their actions or relevant approvals under the regulatory regime; the precautionary principle is an active obligation that applies throughout operations, requiring parties to respond to new information as it arises.
The precautionary principle applies throughout all stages of operation, not just the strategic planning (or approvals) stage.

The decision has broader implications because:

The precautionary principle is embedded in many other statutory regimes in Victoria and around Australia, apart from the Victorian legislative regime for forestry and the protection of endangered species. The decision has implications for any statutory regime in which the principle is enshrined.
Although VicForest is a state-owned enterprise operating within a highly regulated environment, there is scope for the decision to be applied to other types of entities operating within industries where the precautionary principle is relevant.

Furthermore, a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria has strong precedent value, and is likely to be adopted by the Supreme Courts of other States, and perhaps even higher courts or courts with federal jurisdiction.

Action points

Parties under an obligation to apply the precautionary principle need to be aware that:

to implement the precautionary principle as per the principles laid down in Telstra, parties need to ask:
- is there a real threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment?
- if yes, is it attended by a lack of full scientific certainty (in the sense of material uncertainty)?
- if yes, is the threat non-existent or negligible?
- if no, is the threat able to be addressed by adaptive management and is the measure alleged to be required proportionate to the threat in issue?
the principle must be applied at both the strategic decision making stage of a project, and throughout the operational stage; and
it may not be sufficient to simply obtain and comply with project approvals – parties need to proactively respond to new information as it arises throughout the operational stage.’

.

..

.

Editor: The legal doctrine of ‘restraint of trade’ sought to be applied in the commercial exploitation and destruction of old growth forests, is an invalid excuse. It is a contemptible euphemism for a ‘right to rape’ old growth ecology that is being contrived by commercial lawyers profiting from the exploiters ~ a case of the morally bankrupt collaborating with the damned.

[6] Ethical Paper website, ^http://www.ethicalpaper.com.au/

[7] My Environment website, ^http://www.myenvironment.net.au/

.

– end of article –

Tags: Aokigahara Forest, Atsuta Jinja, Australian Forestry Standard, Australian Paper, Chain of Custody certification, deforestation, East Gippsland, EEG, endangered species habitat, Environment East Gippsland, Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests, Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, Forest Stewardship Council, Forestry Standard Certification, FSC, FSC audit process, FSC Chain of Custody Certification, FSC International, FSC-C002059, Future Fibre Strategy, Giant Burrowing Frog, Greater Glider, Greenwash Tick, Kashima Jingu, Kasuga Taisha, Kirishima Jingu, Large Brown Tree Frog, Leadbeaters Possum, Logging, Long-footed Potoroo, Maryvale Pulp Mil, My Environment, Nippon Paper Group, PEFC, Powerful Owl, precautionary principle, pulp and paper, Rainforest Alliance, Reflex Paper, restraint of trade, right to rape, sacred forest, Shimogamo Jinja, Shinto religion, Sooty Owl, The Wilderness Society, Timber Release Plan, Toolangi State Forest, TWS, VicForests, Yahiko Jinja, Yellow-bellied Glider
Posted in Gippsland (AU), Owls, Potoroos, Quolls, Reptiles, Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

VicForests: old growth granny killers

Saturday, July 23rd, 2011

Posted by Tigerquoll:

The VicMolesters are at it again.

Chainsaw-wielding loggers of VicForests are set to target old growth Mountain Ash near Sylvia Creek in the Central Highlands, to Melbourne’s north, east of Kinglake. That an inferno that was Black Saturday in February 2009 ripped through forests in the area around Narbethong, Toolangi and Kinglake matters squat to these woodchip mercenaries.

The Burned Area Emergency Response Report (BAER) commissioned by the Brumby Government after the 2009 bushfires recommended preserving refuge areas such as those in Toolangi for biodiversity recovery.

That the targeted forests have become isolated islands of habitat to rare wildlife matters squat to them. That the forests are home to Victoria’s endangered and disappearing Leadbeater’s possum, the Spotted-Tail Quoll, the Sooty Owl, and Baw Baw frog are but collateral damage to these bastards. “Over half the Leadbeater’s Possum’s forest habitat was destroyed in the Black Saturday bushfires, so every last bit that survives is incredibly precious, and essential to this tiny animals’ survival,” said spokesperson for local group ‘My Environment’ Sarah Rees.

“The criteria the government is using to identify Leadbeater’s Possum habitat are too conservative. We’re talking about Victoria’s wildlife emblem, we should be making sure they multiply and flourish, not simply cling on to the edge of survival.”

VicForests old growth logging is all for a quick buck from woodchip sales to make Reflex Paper. They would sell their daughters for less.

“DSE has confirmed the logging coupe contains old growth trees, even though VicForests and Government Minister Louise Asher insisted last week that it was not old growth forest,” said Wilderness Society forest campaigner Luke Chamberlain.

Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria 3885
Australia

Tags: Baw Baw Frog, Black Saturday, Burned Area Emergency Response Report, DSE, Eucalyptus regnans, Leadbeaters Possum, old growth granny killers, Sooty Owl, Spotted-Tail Quoll, Sylvia Creek, The Wilderness Society, Toolangi, VicForests, VicMolesters
Posted in Owls, Possums and Gliders, Quolls, Reptiles, Threats from Bushfire, Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Petting and eating protected marine life

Sunday, June 26th, 2011

June 26th, 2011 .

Australia’s marine wildlife habitat continues to be decimated by commercial and recreational fishing, urban sewage and runoff, and pollution-caused global warming driving up sea temperatures.

Compounding these threats, new threats have emerged from two recent human sources:

The ‘Native Pet Trade’
‘Upmarket Restaurants’

.
.

.

Threats from the ‘Native Pet Trade’

The Native Pet Trade in Australia is on the rise.

The more discerning pet owner, not content with a garden variety dog or cat, are seeking more ‘exotic’ pets. Reptiles andf unusual marine life have become fashionable.

Then there is the increasing number of apartment dwellers without room for a dog or cat, who are now seeking ‘pocket pets’. Pocket pets are smaller and include animals such as rats, mice and guinea pigs and native and exotic wildlife species: birds, reptiles, fish, crabs, amphibians and invertebrates. Sydney in particular has an increasingly dense urban population and with the increasing housing density and apartment living, the popularity of smaller animals as pets is on the rise. The misconception by many seeking small wildlife species as pets is that these species are less needy and easier to care for than dogs and cats.

But the issue is not the interests of the ‘pet’ owner; the issue is the problem of wildlife poaching and inadequate government enforcement. Irrespective of the motivation, poaching is poaching; albeit for commercial gain, for deviant gratification from killing animals, or perverted ‘pet’ ownership.

Not content with the ordinary garden variety gold fish, discerning private aquarium owners seeking to keep up with the latest trends are seeking out rarer and more unusual marine species to make their showcase fish tank just that little more special and different. It’s a kind a fish tank fashion, it f that’s your thing. Perceived better that exotic fish, what better way to impress guests that having a real seahorse in your tank? No thought is given to the fact that these are generally poached from the wild. No thought is given to about their dwindling numbers or impacts on the ecosystems from which they are poached.

One of the latest aquarium fashion statements particular to Sydney seems to be Weedy Sea Dragons, an Australian native reptile, along with other Australian marine fauna. People are simply poaching marine life for their own personal gain.

To the casual observer, what may pass for innocuous weekend pastime of recreational beachcombing, has become wildlife poaching. Recent years have seen a trend of groups of people scouring coastal rock platforms not for chance inanimate objects washed ashore, but specifically taking Australian marine life. This is poaching is not beach-combing.

Yet governments around Australia are reneging on their custodial duty to protect Australia’s precious marine life.

.

Case in Point: ‘Long Reef Aquatic Reserve’

.

Long Reef Aquatic Reserve is a large rock platform situated on Sydney’s northern beaches area at Collaroy and extends from Collaroy rock baths south to the Long Reef Surf Life Saving Club. It contains a rich diversity and abundance of marine invertebrates rarely seen anywhere and for this reason and due to risks of wildlife poaching, in 1980 it was declared a protected aquatic reserve under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, primarily to protect marine invertebrates found on the rock platforms, and to protect subtidal marine plants and animals.

Long Reef is one of twelve aquatic reserves across New South Wales (Australia) established to protect biodiversity and provide representative samples of our wonderfully varied marine life and habitats. Only fin fishing is permitted. No marine plants or animals can be harmed. This includes the collection of empty shells and dead plants or animals because they provide important habitat or food for living invertebrates. The penalties for breaking the rules are quite severe. NSW Fisheries legislation provides for fines up to $110,000 and on-the-spot fines also apply. All fishing or diving gear may also be forfeited.

[Source: NSW Fisheries Sydney North, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nationalparks/parkHome.aspx?id=a0004]

.

Weedy Sea Dragon

One of the protected species of Long Reef is the ‘Weedy Seadragon‘ (Phyllopteryx taeniolatus), a marine fish related to the seahorse that grows up to 45cm in length. It is found only found in shallow coastal waters of southern Australian from Geraldton WA, to Port Stephens NSW and down around Tasmania. It is the only member of the genus Phyllopteryx. Weedy Seadragons are named for the weed-like projections on their bodies that camouflage them as they move among the seaweed beds where they are usually found.

Due to their unusual appearance, they have become the target marine poaching by private aquarium owners and those in the native pet trade seeking to profiteer.

Weedy Seadragon‘ (Phyllopteryx taeniolatus)

.

There is much concern for the future of the Weedy Seadragon and others in their family. They are threatened by habitat destruction, and potentially by the aquarium trade. Currently seadragons are protected under fisheries legislation federally and in most states where they occur, it is illegal to take or export them without a permit. [Source: http://www.abyss.com.au/scuba/pc/Weedy-Seadragon-p4291.htm]

Continual wildlife pillaging on Long Reef is causing reduction in the numbers and diversity of marine life including the weedy sea dragon. Despite the prospect of a $3300 fine or six months’ imprisonment, few offenders have been caught by authorities, because government monitoring by fisheries inspectors is woefully inadequate. The last arrest was in September 2009, when Manly police caught two teenagers with water dragons stuffed into their backpacks. The teenagers, who were from the western suburbs, told police they wanted to take the lizards home as pets. The poaching is also driven by the black market for native pets.

Water Dragon (Physignathus lesueurii)

One doesn’t have to look far to find Water Dragons for sale on the Internet. They seem to go for $65 – $100.

.

‘Lizards For Sale’

www.tradingpost.com.au/Pets

.

‘Red Phase Bearded Dragons’

www.ultimatereptiles.com.au/…/dragons/dragongallery.html

.

‘Reptiles For Sale – petpages.com.au’

www.exotic-pets.co.uk/lizards-for-sale.html

.

‘Australia Reptiles / Amphibians for Sale, Adoption, Buy, Sell …’

www.adpost.com

.

‘Chinese Water Dragons Classifieds’

Water Dragons For Sale, $24.99 Each Plus $39.95 Overnight Shipping! … 60 Gallon Lizard Tank. 60 gallon 50inchesx13inchesx23inches including stand,screen …
www.hoobly.com/0/2619/0/

.

‘The Pet Directory: World’s largest online pet directory of …’

Specialising in Lizards – Over 80 species of Geckos, Dragons, ….. pythons pythons for sale snake breeders lizards for sale lizard breeders water dragons …
www.petdirectory.com.au/?Reptile_Breeders…1…

.

‘Buy Water Dragons Online. For Sale with Same Day Shipping’

Water Dragon. Manufacturer: ABOUT OUR LIZARDS; Average Size Shipped – Varies… Please add to cart to see current sizes available; We have beginner reptiles …
www.bigappleherp.com/Water-Dragon

‘Gippsland Water Dragons – Aquarium and reptile online shop in …’

The Gippsland Water Dragon(Physignathus lesueurii howittii) is a large lizar. It is grey-green and brown with black banding on back and a row of spines …
www.amazingamazon.com.au/…sale/lizards-for-sale/lizards-for-sale/gippsland-water-dragons-for-sale.html

.

Threats from Upmarket Restaurants

.

Also along Long Reef locals have reported witnessing groups poaching marine life on the protected rock platforms.

“Groups and whole families that start at Palm Beach in a bus and go down the peninsula, combing all the rock shelves for marine life, looking for anything they can sell in a restaurant or eat themselves – sea urchins, shellfish, cunjevoi, sea snails, the lot.”

[Source: Shannon Leckie, ‘Under cover of darkness a lone stance against wildlife poachers‘, by Tim Elliott, 20110430, ^http://www.smh.com.au/environment/under-cover-of-darkness-a-lone-stance-against-wildlife-poachers-20110429-1e0sj.html]

The Exclusive Restaurant Trade in Australia is also on the rise.

Not content with the garden variety fish and chips, exclusive seafood restaurants across Sydney are luring the more discerning diner try more novel offerings, including Australian native red sea urchins, which can be found at Long Reef.

Red Sea Urchin

(Photo from Long Reef)

.

While it is not known which Sydney restaurants may be serving up sea urchins poached from the Long Reef Aquatic Reserve, the following article reveals recent trends by exclusive seafood restaurants across Sydney to include unusual marine animals on their menus.

.

‘Deep Sea Dining’

…by Olivia Riordan and Lissa Christopher,Sydney Morning Herald’s ‘Good Living’ magazine on 15th December 2009.

.

‘A few courageous chefs, the discovery of great local product and diners’ willingness to try novel foods have combined to bring a strange-looking creature off the sea floor and into Sydney’s fine dining venues. Sea urchin has a host of new fans.

”I’ve sold more sea urchin in the past 12 months than I have in the past four years,” says Wayne Hulme from Christie’s Seafood.

Christie’s Asian clientele have enjoyed the spiny creatures for years but, Hulme says, Neil Perry was among the first chefs to put it on a modern Australian menu. ”He’s 10 years ahead of everyone else,” Hulme says.

At Rockpool, Perry serves snapper with a sea urchin roe butter.

The roe inside sea urchins is the real prize. It has a rich, sharp taste Perry describes as “a spoonful of icing sugar, salt straight from the sea and an egg” and Hulme describes as “sweet, salty and weighty”.

Live sea urchin dish at Hugos Manly by chef Massimo Mele.
© Photo: Marco del Grande

Red sea urchins are prized over black sea urchins because they carry roe year round, says Ralph Lavender, a diver and fisher who works with his son on the coast near Kiama and provides Christie’s with up to 100 kilograms of sea urchins each week. Black urchins are more common, he says, but they’re barren for six months of the year. They’re just starting to carry roe again now.

Lavender attributes the rising popularity of sea urchins to chefs realising good local product is available and Australian diners’ growing willingness to try new things.

”People have changed their culinary delights, if you like,” he says. ‘‘They’ll try witchetty grub, a bit of kangaroo tail, a bit of camel meat.”

Now they’re trying sea urchin and Lavender couldn’t be happier. Demand for his catch outstrips his capacity to supply, he says. NSW Department of Primary Industries licensing restrictions place limits on how many sea urchins he can bring in.

Hulme says that, until recently, a lot of the sea urchin roe sold at Christie’s was imported from Chile, arriving fresh but pre-extracted and packaged. Lavender’s sea urchins arrive in Sydney alive with their spikes still wiggling.

Rockpool isn’t the only Sydney restaurant serving sea urchin. Martin Benn from Sepia serves a sea urchin roe butter with mulloway and at Kables Restaurant, chef Carl Middleton makes a sea urchin soup with shark fin and lemon grass, presented in a sea urchin shell.

The head chef with the Hugos Group, Massimo Mele, uses sea urchins in a range of dishes and has been known to dive for them himself. Mele grew up eating the “beautiful and simple” urchins on the Italian coast and doesn’t complicate them on his own menu.’

[Source: ^http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/12/14/1260639163722.html]

.

So where do Sydney restaurants serving ‘Sea Urchin Sauce’ get their sea urchins from?

.

At Rockpool restaurant in The Rocks, “Perry serves snapper with a sea urchin roe butter“.

[Source: ^http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/12/14/1260639163722.html]

Jonah’s of nearby Whale Beach offers as a main course: “Crepinette of Kingfish and Ocean Trout, prawn and scallop mousse, Kipfler potatoes, spinach and Sea Urchin sauce | $48.00“

Source: ^http://www.bestrestaurants.com.au/restaurants/NSW-Greater-Sydney-jonahs.aspx]

Rise in Darlinghurst back in 2005 served up Amuse-bouche which included “semi-poached egg, sea-urchin sauce, salmon roe and shiso“.
[Source: ^http://grabyourfork.blogspot.com/2005/02/rise-darlinghurst.html]

Quadrant Restaurant at Circular Quay on its lunch menu includes for main, “pan roasted blue eye cod, braised fennel, sea urchin butter sauce“

[Source: ^http://mirvac-hotels.assets0.blockshome.com/assets/quay-grand-suites-sydney/7uqAftquXhxhatm/full-quadrant-menu-updated-250510.pdf]

Kabuki Shoroku Seafood Japanese Restaurant in St Martin Tower Clkarence Street Sydney, serves up ‘Kaisen Funamori’, which is described on the menu as:
“Chef’s best selection of fresh sashimi assortment ( live lobster, live abalone, oyster, tuna, salmon, sea urchin and white fish)”

[Source: ^http://www.kabukishoroku.com.au/menu.htm]

.

So where do these restaurants get their sea urchins from?

Are the sea urchins poached from wildlife sanctuaries?

Are the sea urchins endangered?

.

How would diners know?

Do diners care?

.

.K

.

Concerned locals frustrated at government inaction are taking matters into their own hands

.

‘SOS..Save-Our-Snails’

‘Pressure is mounting on authorities to do more to stop the illegal collecting of marine life from Long Reef Aquatic Reserve. Locals have flooded The Manly Daily with complaints about people illegally gathering large sea snails and shellfish from the unique reserve.

Both Warringah Council and the National Parks and Wildlife Service claim to be regularly patrolling the rock platforms, but residents claim it is ineffective.

Beacon Hill resident Joe Van Ewyk took this photo at the reserve late last year.

Illegal poaching of marine life from Long Reef Aquatic Reserve

“There was a group who were very efficient and methodical at removing shells, etc, using metal bars and placing them into a bucket,” he said. “They were there for a considerable length of time – no one confronted them, rangers or otherwise.”

Mr Van Ewyk said not enough was being done to protect the unique platform.

“Go up to Port Stephens and stick your nose into a marine park and you’ll have three rubber duckies onto you straight away, checking your boat for fishing equipment,” he said.

“They’re very keen up there but down here there is nothing.”

Lucette Rutherford said she and her husband regularly swam at Collaroy Basin near the rock platform and on numerous occasions had seen groups of people collecting buckets of shellfish from the rock platforms.

“My husband has called NSW Fisheries and Warringah Council numerous times and only ever reached an answering machine,” he said. “It is distressing to see this damage to the marine life in our protected areas and the open disregard these people show.”

Marine expert Phil Colman said the illegal activity was a regular occurrence and could have a detrimental impact on the broader environment.

“When you target somewhere like Long Reef Aquatic Reserve you are affecting an important link in the food chain,” he said.

A Warringah Council spokeswoman said rangers conducted daily patrols and worked closely with Fisheries, the Surf Club and the Friends of Long Reef to protect the area.

Anyone who sees any illegal activity should contact Warringah Council on 9942 2111 or Fishers Watch Phoneline 1800 043 536.

Mr Colman will lead a guided tour of Long Reef Aquatic Reserve on February 20 from 4pm to 6pm. Details: 0411 124 200.

[Source: ^http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/sos-save-our-snails/]

.

‘Come and join my marine corps urges reef saviour’

Wildlife warrior Shannon Leckie has extended his covert surveillance operation to Long Reef and is looking for volunteers to join the cause.

Concerned nearby resident to Long Reef, Shannon Leckie, is trying to catch the poachers in the act.

.

Mr Leckie, who uses night-vision goggles, camouflage equipment and video recorders to record illegal poachers, wants to create a group of wardens to help protect marine life at the protected reserve. Poaching has been an ongoing issue with people ignoring signs and taking large sea snails and shellfish from the rock platform at low tide.

The former navy medic said he needed volunteers to help record the details of illegal poachers.

“I will film them and then relay the information up to someone in the carpark who can record their licence plates,” he said. “We will then pass that information on to the authorities.”

Only last week Mr Leckie filmed a group of people poaching from the platform in plain sight. “I got them as they walked off the rock shelf and they just looked straight at me,” he said.

One person who has already enlisted is Warringah Greens councillor, Christina Kirsch, who said she would to hand out flyers educating people about the protected reserve.

AQUATIC RESERVE

Extends from Collaroy rockpools to Long Reef Surf Life Saving Club.
The reserve was declared in 1980 to protect marine invertebrates on rock platforms and sub-tidal marine plants and animals.
Except for fin fishing, collecting or harming marine plants or animals in the reserve is banned.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

To become a volunteer warden at Long Reef email ckirsch@optusnet.com.au

[Source: ‘Come and join my marine corps urges reef saviour’, by Brenton Cherry in Manly Daily newspaper, 20110513, ^http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/come-and-join-my-marine-corps-urges-reef-saviour/]

.

Under cover of darkness a lone stance against wildlife poachers

by Tim Elliott, Sydney Morning Herald, 20110430.

.

‘Eco Warrior … fed up with wildlife pillaging on the northern beaches, Shannon Leckie is donning camouflage gear and trying to catch people in the act.

.

‘If you spot a man hiding in the bushes with a video camera around the northern beaches do not be alarmed. It’s just Shannon Leckie, former Royal Australian Navy medic and eco-vigilante extraordinaire. Fed up with the systematic pillaging of native wildlife from his local area, Mr Leckie is going undercover, dressed in combat fatigues and equipped with night-vision goggles and a video camera.

“It’s going to be hit and miss,” the 40-year-old father of two admits. “I plan to get a lie-out position and then just film whatever illegal activity I see. If I catch anyone I’ll call the police and then hand the footage over.”

Mr Leckie will not be carrying any weapons.

“I don’t want to scare anyone. It’s just that the government isn’t putting enough money into this. In Africa and America they have teams dedicated to stop poaching, but here it seems to be pretty much a free for all, especially with the water dragons at Manly and the sea life at Long Reef.”

The eastern water dragon, a lizard protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, was once a common sight along the walkway from Manly to Shelly Beach. But a recent spate of “lizard napping” has halved their numbers, with offenders plucking the animals from the cliffs and bundling them into pillowcases and beach towels.

“It’s a huge problem for us,” said Henry Wong, the general manager of Manly Council, which installed anti-poaching signs in December. “They tend to take the breeding males, because they’re the biggest, which is devastating the colonies.”

Stealing a water dragon attracts a $3300 fine or six months’ imprisonment, but catching offenders has proven difficult. The last arrest was in September 2009, when Manly police caught two teenagers with water dragons stuffed into their backpacks. The teenagers, who were from the western suburbs, told police they wanted to take the lizards home as pets. But Mr Wong believes it is possible the animals are being traded on the black market.

Mr Leckie agrees. “I assume they are selling them overseas, because native Australian flora and fauna fetches quite bit of money.”

Mr Leckie also plans to monitor the northern beaches’ rock platforms. “There are groups and whole families that start at Palm Beach in a bus and go down the peninsula, combing all the rock shelves for marine life, looking for anything they can sell in a restaurant or eat themselves – sea urchins, shellfish, cunjevoi, sea snails, the lot.”

Phil Colman, a marine expert with the Collaroy group Fishcare Volunteers, said the Long Reef Aquatic Reserve was particularly vulnerable, because of its size, diversity and various points of entry. “I have seen people using penknives and crowbars, even bits of wood, to forage on the reef. Usually they target turban shells, and sometimes limpets. They can collect 200 or 300 limpets in a session. You call the fisheries inspectors but by the time they arrive the people are long gone.”

Recognised as the most diverse intertidal marine environment in NSW (“and one of the best in Australia,” according to Mr Colman), the aquatic reserve is used as a teaching platform by university students and schools as far away as Broken Hill.

“And yet poaching there is a constant problem. The issue is that when you target somewhere like Long Reef, you effect the entire food chain.”

Warringah Council recently allocated $40,000 to look into establishing an education centre and “wet lab” at the reef for international and local students. However, in the meantime Mr Leckie will be watching. “I just feel I have to act now, because it’s been going on for so long.”

[Source: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/under-cover-of-darkness-a-lone-stance-against-wildlife-poachers-20110429-1e0sj.html]

Long Reef

.

References:

.

[1] ^http://www.awrc.org.au/uploads/5/8/6/6/5866843/gamble_pets.pdf

[2] ^http://members.ozemail.com.au/~surfcity/Pages/Beach.html

[3] ^http://www.redbubble.com/people/salieri1627/art/5500094-rock-pool-long-reef-aquatic-park-sydney-30-exposure-hdr-panorama-the-hdr-experience
Philip Johnson
[4] http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nationalparks/parkHome.aspx?id=a0004

[5] http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nationalparks/parktypes.aspx?type=aquaticreserve

[6] Weedy Seadragon, ^http://www.abyss.com.au/scuba/pc/Weedy-Seadragon-p4291.htm

[7] ^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllopteryx

[8] Olivia Riordan and Lissa Christopher, 20091215, ^http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/12/14/1260639163722.html

[9] Under cover of darkness a lone stance against wildlife poachers, Tim Elliott, 201104309, ^http://www.smh.com.au/environment/under-cover-of-darkness-a-lone-stance-against-wildlife-poachers-20110429-1e0sj.html

[10] ‘Come and join my marine corps, urges reef saviour’, by Brenton Cherry, 20110513, ^http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/come-and-join-my-marine-corps-urges-reef-saviour/

[11] ^http://www.flickr.com/photos/lsydney/5626257447/

[12] ^http://www.aquariumslife.com/saltwater-fish/seahorse/weedy-sea-dragon-phyllopteryx-taeniolatus/

[13] ^http://www.riverwonders.com/p-97-weedy-sea-dragon-show-specimen-5-6.aspx

[14] ^http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/sos-save-our-snails/

[15] Wobbegong sharks released at Long Reef Aquatic Reserve, ^http://mosman-daily.whereilive.com.au/photos/gallery/wobbegong-sharks-released-at-long-reef-aquatic-reserve-photos-by-simon-cocksedge/

[16] Wobbegongs return to the wild but stay close to home, Aaron Cook, March 9, 2011
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/animals/wobbegongs-return-to-the-wild-but-stay-close-to-home-20110308-1bmod.html

[17] A world in a rock pool, By Rachel Sullivan, ^http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/01/18/3114813.htm

[18] ^http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/australia-and-south-pacific/australia/sydney/long-reef-aquatic-reserve-thingstodo-detail-387857/

[19] http://www.warringah.nsw.gov.au/news_events/documents/WMatters13Autumn09.pdf (page 5)

[20] ‘$40,000 kick start for plan to stop poaching’, by Brenton Cherry, 20110304
^http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/40-000-kick-start-for-plan-to-stop-poaching/

[21] http://www.warringah.nsw.gov.au/council_then/documents/20110208m.pdf (pages 9-10)

[22] ^http://www.lachlanhunter.deadsetfreestuff.com/JB/geo-sitesK-L.htm

[23] ^http://www.reefcarelongreef.org.au/

[24] Save Long Reef Coalition.

.

[The above Internet references were accessed 20110626]

.

– end of article –

RSPCA Qld provides for pocket pets like rats, mice and guinea pigs but the category
“Pocket Pets” also includes native and exotic wildlife species: birds, reptiles, fish,
crabs, amphibians and invertebrates.

As the human population increases in Australia so does housing density, especially on
the East Coast. The popularity of smaller animals as pets is on the rise. It is
generally considered, and most often incorrectly, by the broader community that these
species are less needy and easier to care for than dogs and cats. I offer the following
for consideration in the wildlife as pets debate and argue that having wildlife as pets is
generally not a good idea.
http://www.awrc.org.au/uploads/5/8/6/6/5866843/gamble_pets.pdf

Long Reef Aquatic Reserve was declared in 1980 It extends from Collaroy rock baths south to Long Reef SLSC, and from mean high water out 100m from mean low water (Approx 60 ha.). The reserve was declared primarily to protect marine invertebrates found on the rock platforms, and to protect subtidal marine plants and animals. It is also important for marine education. Long Reef Aquatic Reserve includes two main rocky shores. The northern rocky reef area is protected from southerly swells by the prominent eastern headland, whilst the eastern large platform is more exposed. Different organisms occur in these different areas. Sydney’s northern beaches feature many diverse rock platforms. Long Reef Aquatic Reserve is unique due to its exposure to all four points of the compass. Species dwelling here have managed to adapt well to a huge range of severe conditions. Long Reef Aquatic Reserve has a wide variety of habitats, including sheltered boulder fields and surf-exposed ledges. The diversity and abundance of marine invertebrates here is rarely seen anywhere.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~surfcity/Pages/Beach.html

The Long Reef Aquatic Reserve was declared primarily to protect the marine invertebrates and sub-tidal marine plants and animals. Isobel Bennett AO (1908-2007, at right) was a marine conservation pioneer whose work on Sydney’s rock platforms led to the establishment of the Aquatic Reserve in 1980 by the state government. The reserve covers an area of approx. 60ha from the high water mark out to 100m from low water, extending from the Collaroy rock pool south to Long Reef Surf Club on Long Reef beach.

http://www.redbubble.com/people/salieri1627/art/5500094-rock-pool-long-reef-aquatic-park-sydney-30-exposure-hdr-panorama-the-hdr-experience
Philip Johnson

Long Reef Aquatic Reserve on Sydney’s northern beaches is approximately 20 kilometres north of the city. It extends from Collaroy rock baths south to Long Reef Surf Lifesaving Club, and from mean high water to 100 metres out from mean low water.

The reserve includes two main rocky shores. The northern rocky reef area is protected from southerly swells by the prominent eastern headland, while the larger eastern platform is more exposed. Different organisms occur in these two areas.

Long Reef Aquatic Reserve protects the marine invertebrates on the rock platforms as well as subtidal marine plants and animals. It is also an important site for marine education.

What you can do in the reserve

Long Reef Aquatic Reserve has been set aside for the protection of marine plants and invertebrates. When lifting rocks, be careful of attached animals and about exposing animals underneath to direct sunlight. Also be sure that the rocks are put back in the same place.

Fin-fish can be taken by line or spear only but bring your own bait. Strict bag limits apply to both the numbers and sizes of fish caught. If unsure of what these are, ask the local Fisheries Officer.

With the exception of fin-fish, no marine plants or animals can be harmed. This includes the collection of empty shells and dead plants or animals because they provide important habitat or food for living invertebrates.

The penalties for breaking the rules are quite severe. NSW Fisheries legislation provides for fines up to $110,000 and on-the-spot fines also apply. All fishing or diving gear may also be forfeited.

For further information

Contact NSW Fisheries Sydney North on 8437 4901

or the Port Stephens Fisheries Centre, Protected Areas Unit on 4982 1232

Report any illegal activity to Fishers Watch Phoneline 1800 043 536

(free call 24 hrs State wide)
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nationalparks/parkHome.aspx?id=a0004

Reserve types in NSW – Aquatic reserve

Aquatic reserves have been established to protect biodiversity and provide representative samples of our wonderfully varied marine life and habitats. New South Wales currently has 12 aquatic reserves declared under the Fisheries Management Act 1994.

Although aquatic reserves are generally small compared with marine parks, they play a significant role in the NSW marine protected area system. Apart from protecting important habitat, nursery areas and vulnerable and threatened species, aquatic reserves also have valuable research and educational roles.

Community involvement is critical in the management of aquatic reserves. Through public involvement in management planning processes, the government seeks to achieve community partnership in these important places, providing on going protection for the future.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nationalparks/parktypes.aspx?type=aquaticreserve

Weedy Seadragon

Weedy Seadragons are only found in southern Australian waters, usually ranging from Geraldton WA, to Port Stephens NSW and down around Tasmania. They are weird and mystical looking, not quite seahorse, not quite fish. The Weedy Seadragon is closely related to the seahorse, being a member of the Syngnathidae family. Their habitat is listed as moderately to sub maximally exposed reefs between 1-50m. In Sydney have a number of dive sites where seadragons are spotted on almost every dive. More details…
Previous Item Next Item

Details
video
Reviews

enriched air course

Weedy Seadragons can grow to about 46cm in length. They are orange/red in colour with numerous whitish spots on a lot of their body and along their tube shaped snout. The seadragon also have bluish purple stripes and some yellow markings along their bodies as well. They have leaf like appendages and a few short spines occurring along their body. The seadragon camouflage is quite good and they do resemble seaweed floating on the bottom of the sea floor. Unless you know what you are looking for seadragons can be easily overlooked. Once you have found a few of these creatures it becomes easier to spot them.

Weedy Seadragons usually have a single brood of eggs per season, but if conditions are favourable they have been known to have two broods in one season. They usually breed in spring, however several males weedy seadragon have been spotted in Sydney recently with eggs. Prior to mating the male prepares the area of his tail where he will keep the eggs. This area becomes slightly swollen, soft and spongy. The female actually pushes the eggs onto the males tail. Once on his tail they are fertilised. The male carries anything from 120 to 300 eggs on his tail. He carries the eggs for about 2 months and then the eggs hatch over a period of 6 days. The seadragon hatchlings are quite large when born ranging fm 2.5cm-3.5cm in length and still have a yolk sac attached to them, which supports them for two days while their snout grows. Once their snout is grown they can begin to feed. Juveniles can double in length in one week and can reach 15cm by the end of 14 weeks. Some baby weedy seadragons (about 7cms) have been spotted recently on some of our dives at Kurnell. January this year a lot of juveniles were seen out at Kurnell.

The seadragons diet mainly consists of sea lice and other small crustaceans. They seem to suck their prey straight into the snout! There is much concern for the future of the Weedy Seadragon and others in their family. They are threatened by habitat destruction, and potentially by the aquarium trade. Currently seadragons are protected under fisheries legislation federally and in most states where they occur, it is illegal to take or export them without a permit.

When diving with these beautiful creatures remember not to touch them, be happy to look and photograph the seadragon without harassing them.

http://www.abyss.com.au/scuba/pc/Weedy-Seadragon-p4291.htm

Phyllopteryx taeniolatus, the Weedy Seadragon or Common Seadragon, is a marine fish related to the seahorse. It is the only member of the genus Phyllopteryx. It is found in water 3 to 50 m deep around the southern coastline of Australia, approximately between Port Stephens, New South Wales and Geraldton, Western Australia, as well as around Tasmania. Weedy Seadragons are named for the weed-like projections on their bodies that camouflage them as they move among the seaweed beds where they are usually found.
Weedy Seadragon, Phyllopteryx taeniolatus, from the Sketchbook of fishes by William Buelow Gould, 1832

Weedy Seadragons can reach 45 cm in length. They feed on tiny crustaceans and other zooplankton, from places such as crevices in reef, which are sucked into the end of their long tube-like snout. They lack a prehensile tail that enables similar species to clasp and anchor themselves. Phyllopteryx taeniolatus swim in shallow reefs and weed beds, and resemble drifting weed when moving over bare sand.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllopteryx

=======================

Olivia Riordan and Lissa Christopher
December 15, 2009
Page 1 of 2 | Single page

Afew courageous chefs, the discovery of great local product and diners’ willingness to try novel foods have combined to bring a strange-looking creature off the sea floor and into Sydney’s fine dining venues. Sea urchin has a host of new fans.

”I’ve sold more sea urchin in the past 12 months than I have in the past four years,” says Wayne Hulme from Christie’s Seafood.

At Rockpool, Perry serves snapper with a sea urchin roe butter.

Lavender attributes the rising popularity of sea urchins to chefs realising good local product is available and Australian diners’ growing willingness to try new things.

”People have changed their culinary delights, if you like,” he says. ”They’ll try witchetty grub, a bit of kangaroo tail, a bit of camel meat.”

Now they’re trying sea urchin and Lavender couldn’t be happier. Demand for his catch outstrips his capacity to supply, he says. NSW Department of Primary Industries licensing restrictions place limits on how many sea urchins he can bring in.

Hulme says that, until recently, a lot of the sea urchin roe sold at Christie’s was imported from Chile, arriving fresh but pre-extracted and packaged. Lavender’s sea urchins arrive in Sydney alive with their spikes still wiggling.

Live sea urchin dish at Hugos Manly by chef Massimo Mele.
Photo: Marco del Grande

=======================

Under cover of darkness a lone stance against wildlife poachers
Tim Elliott
April 30, 2011

Eco Warrior … fed up with wildlife pillaging on the northern beaches, Shannon Leckie is donning camouflage gear and trying to catch people in the act. Photo: Edwina Pickles

IF YOU spot a man hiding in the bushes with a video camera around the northern beaches do not be alarmed. It’s just Shannon Leckie, former Royal Australian Navy medic and eco-vigilante extraordinaire. Fed up with the systematic pillaging of native wildlife from his local area, Mr Leckie is going undercover, dressed in combat fatigues and equipped with night-vision goggles and a video camera.

Mr Leckie will not be carrying any weapons.

Mr Leckie agrees. “I assume they are selling them overseas, because native Australian flora and fauna fetches quite bit of money.”

“And yet poaching there is a constant problem. The issue is that when you target somewhere like Long Reef, you effect the entire food chain.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/under-cover-of-darkness-a-lone-stance-against-wildlife-poachers-20110429-1e0sj.html#ixzz1PuLdhur9

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/under-cover-of-darkness-a-lone-stance-against-wildlife-poachers-20110429-1e0sj.html

=====
WILDLIFE warrior Shannon Leckie has extended his covert surveillance operation to Long Reef and is looking for volunteers to join the cause.

Mr Leckie, who uses night-vision goggles, camouflage equipment and video recorders to record illegal poachers, wants to create a group of wardens to help protect marine life at the protected reserve.

RELATED NEWS: Guardians of the night gear up to catch poachers

Poaching has been an ongoing issue with people ignoring signs and taking large sea snails and shellfish from the rock platform at low tide.

The former navy medic said he needed volunteers to help record the details of illegal poachers.

“I will film them and then relay the information up to someone in the carpark who can record their licence plates,” he said. “We will then pass that information on to the authorities.”

Only last week Mr Leckie filmed a group of people poaching from the platform in plain sight. “I got them as they walked off the rock shelf and they just looked straight at me,” he said.

One person who has already enlisted is Warringah Greens councillor, Christina Kirsch, who said she would to hand out flyers educating people about the protected reserve.

AQUATIC RESERVE
*Extends from Collaroy rockpools to Long Reef Surf Life Saving Club.
*The reserve was declared in 1980 to protect marine invertebrates on rock platforms and sub-tidal marine plants and animals.
*Except for fin fishing, collecting or harming marine plants or animals in the reserve is banned.

HOW YOU CAN HELP
*To become a volunteer warden at Long Reef email ckirsch@optusnet.com.au

Come and join my marine corps, urges reef saviour

Environment

13 May 11 @ 03:45pm by Brenton Cherry
http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/come-and-join-my-marine-corps-urges-reef-saviour/

====

Aplysia dactylomela

PHOTO: Long Reef, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, December 1995, 12cm long alive.

======

=====
Species name: Phyllopteryx taeniolatus
Common names: Common seadragon, Weedy Sea Dragon
Family: Syngnathidae (Pipefishes and seahorses)
Subfamily: Syngnathinae
Order: Syngnathiformes
Class: Actinopterygii
Maximum length: 18.11 in
Minimum tank size: unknown
Hardiness: Difficult. Not many aquariums have weedy sea dragons because they do not survive well in captivity. In fact, only slightly more than half do survive.
Aggressiveness: Peaceful
Reef Compatibility: Excellent
Distribution: Eastern Indian Ocean: southern Australia, from southern Western Australia to New South Wales and Tasmania
Diet: They use their tube shaped snout to such up zooplankton and any other tiny crustaceans they can find including mysids. Feeding is what makes them difficult to keep Weedies in an aquarium. They refuse to feed on anything other than their native food or live mysiid shrimps

Additional information:
Phyllopteryx taeniolatus, also known as the Weedy Sea Dragon is native to the Eastern Indian Ocean where it is found among seaweeds and coral reefs at depths of 0-160 feet. Unfortunately, not many aquariums have weedy sea dragons because they do not survive well in captivity. According to Marine Depot Blog, only about 50 aquariums worldwide have sea dragons. This might explain why it was so difficult to find information about this species.

Phyllopteryx taeniolatus is a close relative of the seahorse. It looks similar to the seahorse, except it has long weed-like structures that stick out from their bodies which makes them really difficult to distinguish in their natural environment. They have a long pipe-like snout with a small terminal mouth. The body is usually brown or reddish with their weed-like structures being greener. They also have yellow spots. The body is long and covered in rings of bone.
It is interesting that the Weedy Sea Dragon is so well camouflaged because scientists are still unsure if these animals actually have predators or not.

Sea dragons, sea horses and pipe fish are the only species where the male carries the eggs but seadragons do not have a pouch for rearing the young. Instead, the male carries the eggs fixed to the underside of his tail from where they eventually hatch.

I have found close to nothing about how to keep the Weedy Sea Dragon in aquarium.

http://www.aquariumslife.com/saltwater-fish/seahorse/weedy-sea-dragon-phyllopteryx-taeniolatus/

http://www.riverwonders.com/p-97-weedy-sea-dragon-show-specimen-5-6.aspx

=====

PRESSURE is mounting on authorities to do more to stop the illegal collecting of marine life from Long Reef Aquatic Reserve.

Locals have flooded The Manly Daily with complaints about people illegally gathering large sea snails and shellfish from the unique reserve.