Weekend Warriors lurking on the Public Purse

January 2nd, 2013

“Now Lizzy… A rifle in the wrong hands can be you know, really dangerous.

[Character, Mick Taylor, in the 2005 Australian film, Wolf Creek, co-produced and directed by Greg McLean]

.

“Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures

~ Ralph Waldo Emerson  (1803-1882)

.

Strange Truths of the NSW Game Council

.

  • Established in 2002 under the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 introduced by the Carr Labor Government
  • Annual budget of $3.8 million, of which $2.5 million comes directly from New South Wales taxpayers
  • Received more than $12 million in NSW Government funding since 2002, including $2.7 million in 2011, despite NSW Government promises that it would become self-funded
  • 16,000 recreational amateur hunters are registered with the Game Council of NSW
  • Licenses amateur hunters to use firearms, dogs, and bows to hunt in 400 State forests and Crown land areas
  • In the 12 months to 30 April 2012 the Council estimated licensed hunters took 15,663 animals, mostly rabbits, from public land. This represents a public expenditure of $159 per feral animal killed on public lands.   [Ed: Imported Gourmet Farmed Cervena New Zealand Red Venison Striploin retails for a premium of AUD$108 per kilo, so $159 for a feral rabbit is far from ‘economical hunting’]
  • Since being established there has not been any assessment of the effectiveness of recreational hunting in controlling feral animals in a single State Forest.
  • It head Daniel Boon man has been found to have trophy hunted an endangered African elephant for sport and personal gratification
  • The NSW Game Council is a political minority interest group that has become a law unto itself
  • The political wing of the NSW Game Council is the NSW State Shooters and Fishers Party (perhaps as Sinn Fein is to the IRA).
  • In May 2009, Robert Brown MP of the Shooters Party lobbies for the Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2009 to be passed into legislation in New South Wales, so that many of Australia’s native fauna across NSW (including National Parks) would be condemned as ‘game animals’ just like in colonial times.  The Bill is rejected.
  • In June 2010, NSW State Shooters and Fishers Party MP Roy Smith, dies suddenly aged 56, and is replaced by wildlife trophy hunter, Robert Borsak, holding the balance of power in the NSW Upper House.
  • In April 2011, The Shooters and Fishers Party presents its “shopping list” of ‘game demands’ to the freshly elected O’Farrell NSW Liberal Coalition Government, in return for the Party’s legislative support in the Upper House.  Demands include introducing recreational shooting in NSW national parks and for shooting to be encouraged as a school sport (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Dunblane and Sandy Hook aside).
  • In June 2011, sure enough, with the Shooters Party’s supporting O’Farrell’s public sector wages cuts, the government has opened up more than 140 State Forests for recreational hunting for an unprecedented 10 years.
  • In July 2011 Shooters’ Party proposes its Firearms Amendment Bill 2011 to allow firearms and ammunition in National Parks, children to have ready access to air rifles without a need for a permit, allows a person to own purchase air rifles without restrictions, and to ease safety regulations on shooting clubs and firearms sellers.  The Bill is rejected.
  • In June 2012, the O’Farrell Government does another deal with the Shooters Party allow shooting in national parks and other reserves, in exchange for support for State energy privatisation support.  Amendments are made to the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002.
  • In November 2012, the O’Farrell Government does another deal with the Shooters Party to allow duck shooting licences in return for their support to privatise two major ports.  Now the power over issuing duck shooting licences shifts from the National Parks and Wildlife Service to the pro-hunting Games Council.   Amendments are made to the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.  This is one step short of reintroducing Open Season Duck Hunting in NSW, long banned by the Carr Government in 1995.
  • In September 2012, illegal shooting of kangaroos in the Deua National Park camp is reported, which was subsequently verified by the Office of Environment and Heritage which reported:  “After it was reported to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the investigating park Ranger sighted two kangaroos that had been shot. One animal was euthanised. The matter is under investigation by NPWS and NSW Police.”
  • Recently, the Shooters and Fishers Party announced that they plan to introduce legislation to repeal the Native Vegetation Act 2003, the law that controls broadscale land clearing and regulates logging activities on private land.

 

Robert Borsak, NSW Shooters & Fishers Party

.

“Hunting is ingrained in human consciousness and genetics by at least 1.5 million years of evolution, according to the latest scientific evidence, and in the modern perspective, fishing is one of the nation’s most popular pursuits.”    ~ Robert Borsak – NSW Shooters & Fishers Party, 2012.

.

.

“I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed.”

.

~ Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)

Those who corrupt the public mind are just as evil as those who steal from the public purse.

Stevenson, Adlai E.

.

<<We went into a camp to inoculate some children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn’t see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm.

There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember… I… I… I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn’t know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it… I never want to forget. And then I realized… like I was shot… like I was shot with a diamond… a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God… the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that!

Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these were men… trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love… but they had the strength… the strength… to do that.

If I had ten divisions of those men, our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral… and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling… without passion… without judgment… without judgment!  Because it’s judgment that defeats us.>>

[Quote from character Colonel Walter E. Kurtz out of the epic Vietnam War film Apocalypse Now of 1979, directed by Frances Ford Coppola.  Watch extract: ^http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxLFdJLSho8]

.

“The joy of killing!  The joy of seeing killing done – these are traits of the human race at large.”

~ Mark Twain, ‘Following the Equator: A Journey Around the World’ (1897), American Publishing Co., Hartford.

.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Fraser Island: Bevan Tourism dictates Dingo Culls

December 22nd, 2012
Inky
A pure Fraser Island Dingo
persecuted by a colonial-mindset Queensland Government
..left ear ‘tagged’ by rangers and permanently damaged
..since shot by same rangers.

.

Wildlife-based Tourism Exploitation

.

<<Wildlife-based tourism is a major tourism activity and is increasing in popularity. For many international tourists visiting Australia, viewing Australian wildlife forms a major part of their visit (Fredline & Faulkner 2001).  For domestic tourists, viewing wildlife and sometimes interacting with it is also an important activity, and it caters for specialists and generalists alike.>>

[Source:  ‘Economics, Wildlife Tourism and Conservation: Three Case Studies’, 2004, by Clem Tisdell and Clevo Wilson, CRC for Sustainable Tourism, commissioned by the Australian Government (i.e. taxpayer funded), p.1, ^http://www.crctourism.com.au/WMS/Upload/Resources/bookshop/FactSheets/fact%20sheet.pdf]

.

But it is this ‘Wildlife-based Tourism‘ industry sector where Australian tourism has taken on a dark side.  The industry and the revenue and profits it generates are being used by Australian state governments to justify greater destruction of Australia’s fragile ecosystems.  This innocuous euphemism is exploited by the Queensland Tourism industry to belie the true destructive ecological impacts of  ‘Nature Tourism‘ or ‘Ecotourism‘.

This is like painting a bulldozer green and all subsequent use labelled as ‘eco-bulldozing‘.

Badge d’Exploitation
.
.At least 50% of a tourism operator’s offerings must have a Nature-based focus
and some vague notion of ‘sustainability’ principles.
Pay our fee…et voilà!’ – eco-certification!
[Read More:  EcoTourism Australia (a private company), ^http://www.ecotourism.org.au/]

.

But the most disturbing trend is that even the state government custodians entrusted with ecological protection and conservation, the variously named National Parks and Wildlife Service agencies, have placed the aims of recreation and tourism at a higher management priority than their core function of ecological protection and conservation.

Perhaps this exploitative trend is no more prevalent than across Queensland’s Natural ecology, which is ‘managed’ by the Queensland Government’s Department of National Parks, Recreation and Racing.   About Us:  <<The department manages national parks and their use and enjoyment by all Queenslanders; encourages active lifestyles by providing recreational and sporting opportunities; and manages the racing industry which directly employs 30,000 Queenslanders.>>

<<Queensland’s parks and forests underpin the State’s thriving nature tourism industry. They attract millions of overseas and Aussie visitors each year and contribute billions of dollars to the Queensland economy. Tourists visiting Queensland’s national parks spend $4.43 billion annually—28% of all total tourist spending in Queensland.>>

[Source:  ‘Commercial tourism on parks’, Department of National Parks, Recreation and Racing, Queensland Government, ^http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/tourism/]

.Queensland Government’s Coat of Arms

Left:  a Red Deer entirely irrelevant to Queenslanders.  Right: Queensland’s native Brolga (water bird) symbolising Queensland’s native wildlife population.
The Queensland state motto in Latin, “Audax at Fidelis”, means “Bold but Faithful” – faithful to whom?
Entirely, this emblem is one of the most meaningless and hypocritical of any government.

.

Situated along Queensland’s central coast, World Heritage Fraser Island is a case in point.  Here, tourism visitation has become unsustainable to the point of driving the island’s ecological destruction.   The Queensland Government’s tourism marketing brands the area the Fraser Coast to take in whale watching in Hervey Bay, Reef diving and Fraser Island.  The exploitation of Wildlife-based Tourism is focused on maximising visitation numbers, as if bureaucratic commissions are earned according to visitation numbers.

  Commercial tourism unethically/illegally too close to a Humpback Whale
Yet this image appears on the official Queensland Government tourism website (20121222)
[Source:  ^http://www.queenslandholidays.com.au/destinations/fraser-coast/fraser-coast_home.cfm]

.

The Australian National Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching 2005
[Source: Australian Government,
^http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/cetaceans/whale-watching/]

.

Fraser Island’s native top order predator, the Dingo, has been on Fraser Island for at least 1000 years.  But the Dingo and its fragile ecology are being persecuted and destroyed by the Queensland Government because the prevailing 20th Century exploitative attitude is that Bevan Tourism generates income; Dingoes don’t.   The wildlife tourism promotion of Fraser Island by the Queensland Government has exploited ‘the thrill of seeing a dingo ‘in the wild’ and used the Dingo as a major tourism drawcard.

Dingo Tourism on Fraser Island is actively encouraged by the Queensland Government
Fraser Island Discovery, with its dingo logo shown above, won a recent Queensland Government Tourism Award

.

Bevan Tourism

.

Bevan Tourism is the exploitative, destructive and disrespectful tourism that appeals to the uncouth, loud mouthed, red neck, yobbo, hoon element of Queensland society.

Particular to parochial Queensland, the ‘Bevan‘ is characteristically a young poorly educated Caucasian male usually very thin, or sometimes quite fat with the onset of manboobs, and displaying the clichéd antisocial behaviours such as hooliganism, swearing, reckless driving, alcoholism, Winnie blue smoking (with spare fag ducked behind ear), XXXX/Bundy Rum drinking, and habitually louting around in front of sheilas.

Bevans at Play

.

Bevans are best avoided, especially at social gatherings, sports events, beaches and at campsites.  (See also:  ‘Bogan’ (Melbourne), ‘Westie’ (Sydney), ‘Ned’ (Glasgow), ‘Yob’, ‘Bozo’, ‘Low-Life’).

A Queenslander Bevan, royally succumbed to recreational stupor

.

Bevan Tourism has taken cultural hold over a few popular holiday destinations along the Queensland coast.  Over the past few generations, Bevans mainly from metropolitan Brisbane have particularly targeted the Gold Coast, Maryborough and Fraser Island.

Queensland’s Bevan Tourism most exquisitely expressed here by Fraser Explorer Tours
– on Fraser Island

.

Fraser Island, despite being recognised and listed as a Natural World heritage site since 1992, each holiday season is invaded by Bevan Tourism, targeted especially over Easter.   In part this is because, Queensland Government’s own state tourism department, in cahoots with its national park agency, has marketed Fraser Island for ‘adventure’, ‘parties’, and ‘families’.   Fraser Island’s international listing has been exploited as a tourism drawcard, more so than properly conserved for its internationally important remnant ecosystems, wildlife and flora.

The disturbing trend is that the in mindset of parochial Queensland Tourism, Bevan Tourism is marketed as an equitable right for all people, and that Nature exists in an anthropocentric sense simply to serve that right.  This attitude to ecology is retrograde and straight out of the ancient Old Testament:

.

<<And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.>>

[Source: Book of Genesis, 1:26, Christian Bible, Old Testament]

.

The ‘Dominion Theology’ worldview of Nature
It’s there to be used, feared, exploited, persecuted, poached, butchered, eaten, enslaved, raped, shot, hacked, played with as sport, made extinct.

.

Fraser Island heritage avoids Conservation

.

Pure Fraser Island
[Source:  Australian Geographic,
^http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/view-image.htm?index=8&gid=9642]

.

Fraser Island, the world’s largest sand island, was afforded UNESCO World Heritage status because it satisfied the following three selection criteria:

  1. Superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance  (Natural Criterion 7)
  2. Outstanding examples which represent major stages of earth’s history, including the record of life, significant ongoing geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features  (Natural Criterion 8 )
  3. Outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals  (Natural Criterion 9)
[Source:  ‘Fraser Island World Heritage Area’, Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing, Queensland Government, ^http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/world-heritage-areas/fraser_island.html]

.

Despite these recognise over-arching natural values, tourism and its negative impacts have been allowed to snowball in visitation volume since heritage listing in 1992, while custodial management has allowed the same values to deteriorate.

What has been conspicuously overlooked is proper recognition of Fraser Island’s status under UNESCO Natural Criterion 10, for surely Fraser Island ‘contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.’

The custodianship of such valuable World Heritage properties across Australia is the ultimate responsibility of the Australian Government.

While Australia’s World Heritage properties are legally protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), conveniently responsibility for that protection is rather half-hearted since the Australian Government delegates management of all of them to the lesser state governments, which have considerably less resources and demonstrably less interest in delivering UNESCO-standard ecological conservation management.

^United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

.

The Queensland Government for instance, currently lumps Fraser Island management under its Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing.   Clearly, the attitude of the Queensland Government to World Heritage and National Parks under its custodial responsibility exists for human recreational benefit and enjoyment – along with sport and racing.

.

Fraser Island’s Record of Exploitation

.

Prior to 1992, Fraser Island was industrially abused; mined for minerals and sand (1966-1989) and logged for old growth Turpentine timber (Syncarpia glomulifera) for over 130 years.
[Read: >‘Impacts of Logging on Fraser Island’]

Fraser Island’s ecosystems (its rainforests, Wallum woodlands, freshwater dune lakes and coastal dunes) came close to irreversible annihilation by over-exploitation by these two industries and condoned for such by successive Queensland governments.

Since logging and mining were stopped (only from international embarrassment), Queensland’s Tourism Industry has been supplanted as Fraser Island’s main threat, yet consistently encouraged and funded doggedly by a 20th Century mindset Queensland Government.

Wild Dingo
 Australia’s native top order predator
promoted by the Queensland Government as a tourism drawcard to Fraser Island
culled by the Queensland Government from 300 down to just 100 individuals
shot by the Queensland Government if  ‘aggressive’ (wild)

.

<<Fraser Island tourism has been burgeoning for decades. In 1971 the number of visitors to Fraser Island doubled from 5,000 in the previous year to 10,000 as a result of the publicity surrounding the sandmining controversy. It has steadily increased ever since. By 1999 it had reached over 300,000 visitors.>>

Current statistics for Fraser Island visitation are not readily published by the Queensland Government, but it is estimated that around 500,000 visitors, many from overseas, visit Fraser Island each year.    [Source:  ‘Concerns heightening for Fraser Island’s dingoes’, 2009, by Nick Alexander, in Ecos Magazine, ^http://www.ecosmagazine.com/view/journals/ECOS_Print_Fulltext.cfm?f=EC151p18]

Hummers catering for Bevan Tourism
– on Fraser Island

.

<<For Lake McKenzie (Fraser Island) in particular, extremely high visitation levels over the course of summer are ultimately likely to influence the ecology of the system, particularly if a considerable proportion of visitors add nutrients to the lake, either through urination, washing or bathing activities (Strasinger 1994, Butler et al. 1996).>>

.

[Source: ‘Effects of Tourism on Fraser Island Dune Lakes‘, 2004, by Wade Hadwen et al.
Read the complete paper below under the heading ‘Read more about Tourism Impacts on Fraser Island‘]

.

The Four Main Adverse Impacts of Tourism on Fraser Island

.

1.  Target Destinations  (high concentration visitation)

.

Certain Fraser Island areas are identified and marketed by tourist interests with the result that they draw tourists to them like bees to a honey pot even to the extent that they become needlessly degraded and overused.  Eli Creek, Lake McKenzie and Central Station are such sites.

Daily hundreds of tourists from the Noosa area spend needless hours to drive past equally outstanding natural features in the Cooloola National Park so that commercial tour operators can capitalize on the “marketing of these well-known products”.   This focus is unsustainable.

Such sites are being overused and yet tourists are reluctant to be redirected to other alternative areas which could sustain some increase in visitation.

Tourist saturation of Eli Creek, Fraser Island
(Dingo habitat designated off-limits to Dingoes)

.

2.  Means of Access

.

Once tourism becomes established, it is difficult to change.

Tourist guide books tend to be based upon past experience. Recommendations to intending visitors are largely based on such past practice. Thus although there are better ways to see Fraser Island than in largely lumbering four wheel drive buses or self of four wheel drive vehicles, this method of visitation has become so entrenched that it is difficult to change.

The most serious adverse environmental impacts now being experienced on Fraser Island are result of this form of transportation.

Ban 4WDs from Fraser Island
Change the 20th Century culture!

.

3.  “Traditional” Visitation Practices

.

It takes very little time for modern society to claim that certain practices are so “traditional” that practitioners claim they can’t be changed.

This has been used by commercial fishers to demand to camp in the same site contrary to the Recreation Areas Management Act and to have vehicular access to beaches closed to other vehicular traffic.

Likewise the “tradition” of free range camping has become so entrenched that although this practice has been shown to be unsustainable there is a reluctance to phase it out despite compelling evidence that this form of tourism should be ended.  Similar conservatism allows Fraser Island tourists to continue to squander resources and degrade the environment through open camp-fires.

.

4.  Surface Disturbance

.

On Fraser Island, the impact of surface disturbance of any sort is more critical than most other natural areas which have a much more robust substrate (ground surface).

The susceptibility of the substrate to any disturbance magnifies the impacts of tourism on Fraser Island more than most other natural areas. (Coral reefs and semi-arid areas with cryptobionic crusts may be as susceptible to disturbance). The reason for this fragility is due to the fact that exposed sand surfaces in vegetated areas of Fraser Island have a very high degree of water repellence which makes them very susceptible to water erosion. Vegetated sand surfaces are much less susceptible.

If the visitors can be carried in such a way that they do not disturb the substrate surface by such means as board walks or by light rail, then the surface disturbance and thus the environmental impact of visitation is contained and reduced.>>

.

Further Tourism Impacts

.

5.  Erosion of Wilderness Values

.

Tourism erodes wilderness values through its infrastructure — motor vehicles, roads, modern buildings and the sounds of modern engines. The increasing penetration of more people into parts of the island previously exempt from intense visitation erodes wilderness. Aircraft overflying remoter parts of Fraser Island and other intrusive modern noise also erodes wilderness values.

.

6.  Spread of Injurious Agents

.

Injurious agencies which impact on other values of Fraser Island include the spread of weeds, feral animals and pests, new pathogens, wild fires and litter. Tourism has the potential to facilitate the introduction and spread of these injurious agencies. In the end the impact of injurious agencies resulting from tourism have a greater potential to degrade Fraser Island than some other industries.

.

7.  Diversion of Management Resources

.

Managing tourism is responsible for diverting much of Fraser Island’s very limited resources from natural resource management (control of fires, weeds, feral animals etc. and resource monitoring) to recreation management (including access, waste management, behaviour control, provision of infrastructure, maintenance for roads, etc.). Tourism produces a great deal of waste and human waste and this is resulting in some water pollution particularly as a result of inadequate treatment of sewage.

Increasing numbers of tourists also impede natural resource management strategies such as fire and dingo management because of the high priority given to public safety and property protection over resource management and protection.

.

8.   Perversion of political priorities

.

Pandering to perceived tourist demands has resulted in political decisions which have over-ridden the Management Plan for Fraser Island such as relocating the Toyota Fishing Expo and reopening the dangerous Orchid Beach airstrip. Many politicians are motivated more by pursuing popularity than with implementing a Management Plan which some vocal dissidents with vested interests disagree with.

A Queensland Tourism ideal image for Fraser Island
 Maximising 4WD tourist numbers!

.

Motor Vehicle Impacts

4WD road widening of Fraser Island

.

The impact of four wheel drives on Fraser Island is extremely significant; affecting roads, wildlife, habitat and recreation amenity.

.

9.   Roads

.

The largest impact is on the roads. Road traffic accelerates erosion. During every heavy downpour of rain thousands of tonnes of sand wash off the roads to fill lake basins and streams with sediment and smother many natural habitats.  In February 1999, over two metres of sand was deposited at the intersection of the Pile Valley and Wanggoolba Creek Road burying a large stump. Sand from adjacent roads is being sluiced into Lake McKenzie, Lake Allom, Lake Boomanjin, Lake Birrabeen and more.

Opening of the canopy over the roads results in desiccation resulting in considerable changes to the micro-flora and a reduction of ^epiphyte numbers.

.

10.  Impacts on Wildlife

.

Back in 1991, when Fraser Island was listed for its natural world heritage values,  its Dingo population was about 300 individuals and believed to be ‘the largest genetically
unhybridised population on the east coast of Australia.

But Bevan Tourism saw increasing numbers of young families recklessly venturing into the wild Dingo’s habitat and feeding grounds.  During one of the busy tourist holiday times, Christmas summer holidays, a young child was mauled by a dingo, and an ignorant vengeful media campaigned to demonise the Dingo.  The media venom fabricated the term ‘Dingo Superpack‘.

During the following six years, the Queensland Government ordered the killing of over a hundred Dingoes on Fraser Island.    In 2001, a nine-year-old schoolboy, Clinton Gage, was fatally mauled by a Dingo, which sparked another media Dingo witch-hunt, and a further 32 Dingoes were killed within a matter of a few weeks by the Queensland Government.

An infant (4 years old) was badly bitten by a Dingo on Fraser Island in April 2007 and another 3 year in April 2011.  Both incidents occurred during the popular Bevan Tourism Easter holidays. Both involved irresponsible parents.   In July 2012, a drunken German tourist, sleeping it off alone on an isolated bush track at night, was attacked by a Dingo.  He was part of Bevan Tourist group organised by the Rainbow Beach Adventure Company.

Despite the protection status of the Dingo in its native habitat in a listed World Heritage Area, the Queensland Government has ignored the wildlife values and rights in favour of perpetuating Bevan Tourism rights.  It has become standard management practice for the Queensland Government’s Parks and Wildlife Service to shoot kill any ‘aggressive’ animal or animal that ‘shows no fear of humans’ – that is, Dingoes.

Dingo pup tagged by rangers on Fraser Island,  November 2012
Another ear permanently damaged

.

Since 2009, researcher Dr Luke Leung from Queensland University, has feared the population has been reduced to around 100 animals and their genetic viability over the long term is being compromised.

In addition, shore bird numbers have been decimated by the unchecked growth of four wheel drive beach traffic. Oyster catchers, Red-capped dotterels and Beach thick-knees have been most affected.

.

11.  Eroding Habitat

.

Roads occupy space, a space which takes a long time to revegetate after the roads cease to be used. Roads also act as barriers to the movement of wildlife. Distribution of many ant species and frogs is affected by roads. Some won’t cross roads to identical habitat on the other side.

As a consequence of habitat destruction, the availability of natural prey of the Dingo, such as bandicoots, rats, echidnas, fish, turtles and skinks, has declined.  Dingoes have been forced to scavenge around tourist campsites for human food and garbage.   Tourists ignorantly feeding Dingoes has encouraged Dingoes to become less independent upon reduced natural prey and more dependent on tourists, which has adversely altered the natural food chain only the island.

.

12.  Pollution

.

Now there evidence is starting to appear that vegetation adjacent to “black holes” in the roads is suffering.

.

13.  Noise

.

The aesthetic impact of noise is well known and understood yet it is largely ignored. The impact of the noise from traffic on the road above Wanggoolba Creek on the walking track beside this icon of Fraser Island significantly degrades this experience.

.

14.  Distortion of Priorities

Populist politicians condone novel commerce ahead of novel solutions

.

Because so much of Fraser Island tourism is vehicle based, roads have been cannibalistic, consuming a disproportionate share all the financial and staff resources.

This stopped any progress towards a walking track management plan for the island for more than six years. Vehicle based tourism has also been responsible for preventing closing tracks due to be closed under the Management Plan for more than 6 years. Preoccupation with roads has stalled progress towards the establishment of a more ecologically sustainable light rail proposal.>>

.

[Sources:  ‘Values of Fraser Island Tourism’, Fraser Island Defenders Organisation (FIDO), ^http://www.fido.org.au/values-of-fraser-tourism.html; ‘Concerns heightening for Fraser Island’s dingoes’, 2009, by Nick Alexander, in Ecos Magazine, CSIRO Publishing, Australia. ^http://www.ecosmagazine.com/view/journals/ECOS_Print_Fulltext.cfm?f=EC151p18]

.

Read more about Tourism Impacts on Fraser Island

.

[a]   ‘Fraser Island Discussion Paper and Recommendations‘, Aug 2010, Queensland Liberal National Party (LNP) while in opposition (in government since March 2012), ^http://savefraserislanddingoes.com/pdf/Fraser%20Island%20Discussion%20paper%20and%20recommendations%2023.8.10.pdf,  [>Read Report  570kb, PDF]

.

[b]  Effects of Tourism on Fraser Island Dune Lakes‘, 2004, by Wade Hadwen, Angela Arthington, Stuart Bunn and Thorsten Mosisch, Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, research project funded by the Australian Government (i.e Australian taxpayers), ^http://www.crctourism.com.au/wms/upload/images/disc%20of%20images%20and%20pdfs/for%20bookshop/documents/hadwen21001_fraserisdlakes.pdf

Brief Abstract:

<<In light of the rapidly growing tourism industry in the region, excessive tourist use of the dune lakes on Fraser Island could deleteriously affect their ecology and in turn, their aesthetic appeal to tourists. The findings from this research study suggest that the current level of tourist pressure on the perched dune lakes on Fraser Island is likely to have a significant long-term impact on the ecological health of these systems.>>  [>Read Report  830kb, PDF]

.

[c]   Read related articles on this website by The Habitat Advocate: >Fraser Island Hoon Tourism out of control

.

Tourist Dingo Branding of Fraser Island

.

National Parks ‘Tourism Playground’ imperative

.

This ‘Godzilla’ bus especially caters for Bevans to Fraser Island

.

Day-to-day management and protection of the World Heritage property is carried out by the Queensland Government’s Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing’s – Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS).  Much of their focus and activities is with accommodating the interests of tourists, not with respecting the viability, health of the Island’s important ecosystems, fauna and flora.

The Queensland Government has a revolving record of failed conservation management plans and strategies, reviewed and replaced since the Fraser Island Management Plan of 1975.   This includes revisions in 1978, 1986, 1991, 2001, and 2006.  The current strategy dated 2001 is termed the Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy (FIDMS).

Read:  >Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy (2001)  (PDF, 270kb)

The overall objectives of the Dingo Management Strategy are to:

  1. Ensure the conservation of a sustainable wild dingo population on Fraser Island  (Ed:  numbers not specified, Dingo recovery programme non-existent)
  2. Reduce the risk to humans  (Ed:  kill native Dingoes if deemed ‘aggressive’ or ‘showing no fear of humans’)
  3. Provide visitors with safe opportunities to view dingoes in environment in near as possible to their natural state   (Ed: exploit native Dingoes and their habitat for the benefit of wildlife-based tourism revenue)

.

The current Dingo Management Strategy includes a deliberate Dingo persecution set of directives:

Strategy 4:    Programs will be implemented to modify dingo behaviour and habits which threaten human safety and wellbeing.

Strategy 5:    Any dingo identified as dangerous will be destroyed humanely using accepted methods after receiving appropriate approvals.

Strategy 6:    A cull to a sustainable level may be undertaken if research can show the population is not in balance.

A pure Dingo’s cruel fate

.

.

“What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night. It is the breath of a buffalo in the winter time. It is the little shadow which runs across the grass and loses itself in the Sunset.”

~ Chief Crowfoot (c.1821-1890) of the SikSika Nation of southern Alberta, Canada.

.

Implementation of the current Dingo Management Strategy prescribes “direct management of dingoes (destruction of individuals or prescribed culling)…implemented if supported
by the results of research and/or in situations where risks to human life or safety are unacceptably high and cannot be diminished through alternative measures.

Responsibilities of the dingo management Rangers include:

  • Public contact to inform Island visitors of appropriate behaviour concerning dingoes
  • Enforcement of dingo-related regulations
  • Monitoring and recording the status of dingo packs in their management unit (photographic records)
  • Marking and tagging pups and problem animals
  • Involvement in aversive conditioning projects
  • Maintaining dingo-related equipment (traps, fences, dingo incident sheets)
  • When authorised, the trapping and destruction of problem dingoes

.

Andrew Powell  MP,  purely for the Media
Queensland Government’s current Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection

.

“People…especially people in positions of power…have invested a tremendous amount of effort and time to get to where they are. They really don’t want to hear that we’re on the wrong path, that we’ve got to shift gears and start thinking differently.”  

  ~ David Suzuki

.

‘Island Playground’ dictates Dingo Culling

.

2009:  ‘Residents protest Fraser Island dingo cull’

.

<<Hervey Bay residents met last night and called for an end to the hazing and culling of dingos on Fraser Island.  Submissions to the review of the State Government’s dingo management strategy closes next week.  Seven dingos have been killed this year compared to three last year.  The Opposition’s climate change and sustainability spokesman Glen Elmes says the Government needs to listen to the community.

“We have a situation where the current system and the planning that’s put place to deal with dingos on Fraser Island is all wrong – that’s not me swanning in for half an hour and making that statement.  We had a meeting in Hervey Bay last night and we listened to about 30 locals, who represented not only the indigenous community but concerned locals from both the mainland and the island.”>>

[Source:  ‘Residents protest Fraser Island dingo cull’, 20090528, by Katherine Spackman, ABC, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-05-28/residents-protest-fraser-island-dingo-cull/1697234]

.

2012:  ‘Dingo eludes Fraser Island rangers’

.

<<Rangers on Fraser Island have destroyed another dingo at Cathedral Beach, but the K’Gari camp dog ‘Inky‘ still eludes them.

QPWS has decided to bring in a hired gun, a trapper, to destroy this animal. Is this the future of Fraser Island?  Residents and visitors are encouraged to throw sticks, shout and kick sand at the animals and to  ‘dob in a dingo‘. Some residents have even been advised to shoot them with a slingshot. There is no responsibility placed upon parents who leave children unsupervised or visitors who harass the animals, no fines or penalties, but the dingo pays the ultimate penalty and is destroyed.

The Regional Manager, Ross Belcher, admits the camp dog did not bite anyone, nor did the animal that was recently destroyed, but it has a destruction order because of a complaint by tourists who are considered unreliable and have no understanding of dingo behaviour.

This dingo has been wounded, has a mangled ear due to an infected ear tag and as a result is very wary. Therefore it would seem QPWS has achieved its aim of making the animal fearful of people, why then do they continue their campaign of search and destroy?

Locals lament a time when the dingoes could roam free and occasionally steal a fish or grab a towel from an unsuspecting tourist, it was all part of the Fraser Island experience, but now that animal would be considered dangerous and destroyed.

Unless the Management Strategy review finds in favour of the dingo and not the tourist dollar, the persecution and harassment will continue until there are no longer any animals remaining, this is the legacy of Fraser Island.>>

[Source:  ‘Dingo eludes Fraser Island rangers..’, October 2012, by Cheryl Bryant, Save Fraser Island Dingoes Inc., ]

.

Queensland Government Rangers ‘hazing‘ a Dingo pup in its native Fraser Island habitat

.

‘Hazing’?

.

<<Hazing is harassment, where you disturb the animal’s sense of security to such an extent that it decides to move on.

To be effective, harassment must be continuous, concentrated, and caustic, just like torture.

Always remember that you are trying to convince an animal to leave its home or food source. In short, you must become the animal’s worst neighbor. You must convince the animal that you are more bothersome than the possibility of starvation or homelessness.

.

I. Continuous Harassment

You must harass the animal on a daily basis for as long as necessary. Don’t be surprised if this activity goes on for weeks.

.

II. Concentrated Harassment

Your efforts must focus on the animal causing the problem. For example if you are using noise it must be centered at where the animal is living. Failure to concentrate the harassment technique simply makes the animal get used to the problem because the problem will be everywhere. It’s like living in N.Y. City. You get used to the traffic noise.

.

III. Caustic Harassment

The harassment technique must be bothersome to the animal. The greater the discomfort to the animal the faster the technique will develop results. Warning: when you harass an animal there are no guarantees where it will decide to take up residence next. It is not out of the question that a raccoon, upon leaving your chimney will decide to enter your attic.>>

.

[Source:  Internet Centre for Wildlife Damage Management, America, ^http://icwdm.org/ControlMethods/Hazing.aspx]

.

Bevans in typical distress on Fraser Island

.


.

Related Articles    (this website)

.

[1]    >Dingo Ecology deserves respect on Fraser Is

.

[2]   >Remove all ferals from Fraser Island

.

[3]   >Dingo: Australia’s ancient apex predator at risk

.

[4]   >Fraser Island Hoon Tourism out of control

.

Queensland Tourism Legacy

.


.

Further Reading

.

[1]    Save Fraser Island Dingoes Inc.,  President: Malcom Kilpatrick. President, Website:  ^http://savefraserislanddingoes.com/

.

[2]   Australian Wildlife Protection Council, President: Maryland Wilson,  ^http://www.awpc.org.au

.

[3]   Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy‘, November 2001, Environmental Protection Agency – Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS),  Queensland Government, ^http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/register/p00500aa.pdf   [>Read Strategy]

.

[4]     Review of The Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy – Terms of Reference, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection,

^http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/dingoes/pdf/fidms-review-tof.pdf  [>Read Strategy]

.

[5]     ‘Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy – Review‘, December 2006,   ^http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/register/p02215aa.pdf   [>Read Report]

.

[6]    ‘Stakeholder Workshop‘ .  A vague title, but yet another…Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy Review, this time by Ecosure (consultancy outsourced by Queensland Government), 20121005, ^http://www.ecosure.com.au/business-units/wildlife-management/alias/fidms/,   http://www.ecosure.com.au/uploads/documents/ibis/Stakeholder%20workshop%20-%20summary.pdf  [>Read Summary]

.

[7]    ‘A History of Fraser Island‘, 2011, by Pat O’Brien, President, Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc., ^http://www.awpc.org.au/img/A_History_of_Fraser_Island_2011_by_Pat_O__Brien..pdf    [>Read Paper]

.

[8]    Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc. (WPAA), PO Box 309, Beerwah, Queensland Australia, 4519, President: Pat O’Brien, ^http://www.wildlifeprotectaust.org.au/

.

[9]     Coalition for Wildlife Corridors, Kindness House, 2nd Floor, 288  Brunswick St, Fitzroy 3065, Victoria, Australia,  (no website found)

.

[10]   ‘ If they could talk to the animals…‘, book by Jonathan Knight, in Nature, Vol.414, pp.246-247, (no website found)

.

[11]  Vanishing Icon, the Fraser Island Dingo‘, by Jennifer Parkhurst, 2010, Grey Thrush Publishing,  ^http://www.fraserislandfootprints.com/?page_id=694,

Main Website: ^http://www.fraserislandfootprints.com/

.

[12]   ‘Dingo‘, by Brad Purcell, 2010, CSIRO Publishing, ^http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6430.htm

Abstract:

<<Many present-day Australians see the dingo as a threat and a pest to human production systems. An alternative viewpoint, which is more in tune with Indigenous culture, allows others to see the dingo as a means to improve human civilisation. The dingo has thus become trapped between the status of pest animal and totemic creature. This book helps readers to recognise this dichotomy, as a deeper understanding of dingo behaviour is now possible through new technologies which have made it easier to monitor their daily lives.

Recent research on genetic structure has indicated that dingo ‘purity’ may be a human construct and the genetic relatedness of wild dingo packs has been analysed for the first time. GPS telemetry and passive camera traps are new technologies that provide unique ways to monitor movements of dingoes, and analyses of their diet indicate that dietary shifts occur during the different biological seasons of dingoes, showing that they have a functional role in Australian landscapes.

Dingo brings together more than 50 years of observations to provide a comprehensive portrayal of the life of a dingo. Throughout this book dingoes are compared with other hypercarnivores, such as wolves and African wild dogs, highlighting the similarities between dingoes and other large canid species around the world.>>

.

[13]   ‘Butchulla people – Traditional Owners of K’gari (Fraser Island)‘,  by Dale Lorna Jacobsen, ^ http://dalelornajacobsen.com/5_butchulla_website;   Also: ^http://dalelornajacobsen.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Butchulla_pathways.24174426.pdf,   [>Read Brochure, PDF, 2.8MB (large file, so may take a while to download)]

.

[14]   ‘Finding Fraser Island‘ by Ken Eastwood, in Australian Geographic, Vol.107, March – April 2012, pp. 67-79.

.

[15]   ‘Fraser Island World Heritage Area‘, Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing, Queensland Government, ^http://www.nprsr.qld.gov.au/world-heritage-areas/fraser_island.html

.

[16]    ‘When Wildlife Tourism Goes Wrong:  A Case Study of Stakeholder Management Issues Regarding Dingoes on Fraser Island, Australia‘, May 2006, by Georgette Leah Burns and Peter Howard, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia, ^http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/6029/When_wildlife…?sequence=1,  [>Read Paper, PDF, 175kb]

.

[17]   A Draft Dingo Management Strategy for Fraser Island, by the Fraser Island Defenders Organisation (FIDO), ^http://www.fido.org.au/DingoManagement.html

See reproduced as follows..

.

An Ecologically Respectful Custodial Strategy for Fraser Island  (by FIDO).

.

<<For more than 28 years, the Fraser Island Defenders Organization has been researching the management of Fraser Island to be in the best position to advocate the wisest use of its natural resources. The organization has a longer history associated with the management than any other organization, including the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and its predecessors.

The Fraser Island Defenders Organization has studied and considered the Draft Fraser Island dingo management strategy prepared by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and this submission is a response to that document released in April, 1999.

This organization has examined Draft Dingo Management Strategy and recommends some very important issues which need to be recognized and also some significant changes which need to be made to the actions.

.

1. FIDO wants the genetic status of Fraser Island dingoes recognized and protected.

2. Dingoes should be allowed to remain free to roam in the wild on Fraser Island.

3. The strategy should address all of the issues relating to the dingo population, including the characteristics, and the changes during the past century.

4. There is a need to review the population dynamics of Fraser Island dingoes to ensure that the island environment is managed to achieve an optimum dingo population. This needs to recognize that historically there was a much higher population on Fraser Island.

5. Dingoes should not suffer because of the intervention of humans which have induced changed behaviour.

6. A humane system of tagging should be established and all Fraser Island dingoes should be individually identified to provide more precise data on the actual population numbers and to assist in further research on animal behaviour.

7. The strategy should recognize how environmental changes during the last century on Fraser Island have impacted on dingoes and move to minimize these impacts.

8. The QPWS should develop a code of conduct which not only outlaws feeding of dingoes but also one which stops people encouraging dingoes to approach closer than 10 metres to be photographed thus encouraging them to loose their wariness of humans.

9. FIDO generally supports the first four recommendations of the Draft Dingo Management Strategy but is opposed to the recommendations for relocation, destruction, and culling.

.

1. Significant Omissions

There are a number of significant omission in the Draft Fraser Island dingo management strategy. The most important omission seems to be a clear objective for the strategy. Other omissions relate to the history of the dingo on Fraser Island, the significance and genetic purity of the dingoes on Fraser Island, the status of dingoes and the impact of environmental changes during the last 100 years.

1.1 The need for a clear objective: The Strategy should clearly state its objective. Without such an objective being clearly and publicly stated implementations of the final three recommendations could result in the extermination of the dingoes on Fraser Island. Is it to protect people from harassment by dingoes or is it to protect the animals? Is it to be an outcome that the genetic strain of Fraser Island dingo is only to be preserved in a zoo or behind barriers or is it to ensure that dingoes are to be allowed to roam wild on Fraser Island?

At present the objective could be construed only as stopping dingoes attacking humans.

The Fraser Island Defenders Organization believes the Final Management Strategy should carry wording such as:

“The biologically importance of the Fraser Island dingo strain is a value which must be preserved in as pure a form as possible. The fact that dingoes have lived on Fraser Island in the wild for thousands of years makes it important that the dingoes are allowed to roam as wild and unconfined animals on Fraser Island.

“The object of this strategy is predicated by the need to ensure that a viable wild population of dingos is maintained on Fraser Island.”

1.2.1 History: The bibliography of the Draft Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy fails to include any reference to any material relating to dingoes prior to 1994. The Draft Strategy doesn’t refer to any material from early in the Century which would give the current situation a different perspective. FIDO believes that this is a significant omission because it fails to give a proper perspective to the current dingo management problems on Fraser Island.

In 1976, FIDO began formally collecting and recording oral history from veterans whose memory of Fraser Island extended back as far as 1905 (Jules Tardent). This collection of historical perspectives has continued since. In all of FIDO’s questioning, there was never any mention of dingoes attacking humans. There were also many reports that dingoes were afraid of humans.

1.2.2 Past Populations: All accounts appear to support the claims that the dingo population on Fraser Island in the early part of the 20th Century was much higher. This needs to be compared with the current estimated “population of 25 to 30 packs peaks at approximately 200 animals during whelping in June-July” which is stated in the draft strategy.

1.2.3 Past population estimates: While all estimates are very subjective were likely to have greatly exceeded 1,000. In personal conversations Rollo Petrie puts the population around 1915 to 1922 as possibly up to 2,000. In “Early Days on Fraser Island — 1913-1922″, he provides a theory of why he believed that the dingo numbers built up rapidly when they no longer had to compete with the Aboriginal population of 2,000 to 3,000 for food.

Petrie refers to comparative number (pp 59-60). He refers to numbers: (Available food) would not be as plentiful now if there was an equivalent number of dogs on Fraser Island, as in the early 1900’s. The few dingoes now live comfortably on scraps …” Further on he reports: “George Jackson on a trip to Indian Head, found a freshly shot stallion on the beach a few miles south of Indian Head. George … poisoned the carcass and then camped not far away. Next morning he had 100 scalps and not a great deal of the horse was left.”

1.2.4 Relevance of historical dingo population: The significance of the size of Fraser Island’s dingo population in the past is important because it reflects on the carrying capacity in the past. It would seem to indicate that environmental changes are responsible for a diminution of the island’s carrying capacity for dingoes.

Other aspects of dingo numbers are important because most geneticists would regard a population of 100 on an island, isolated from other genetic sources as a very risky. This will be discussed further below as that has major implications for management.

1.3.1 Significance of Fraser Island Dingoes: The significance of the genetic purity and the importance of the Fraser Island Dingo population is significantly understated in the Draft Strategy. The Draft (Para 2) only states, “Fraser Island dingoes … are likely to be the purest strain of dingoes on the eastern Australia seaboard.” Nowhere else does the strategy even refer to the fact that such an important gene pool needs to be protected and perpetuated.

It is FIDO’s submissions that the genetic significance of the Fraser Island dingo strain justifies all efforts to protect and preserve this gene pool.

1.3.2 Preserving the Gene Pool: Assuming that the population peak of 200 is accurate, this is a very small gene pool on which to base a program for further reducing that gene pool. It is more worrying in the context that on anecdotal evidence the population has significantly declined over the past 8 decades.

If the numbers drop below “100 animals when breeding recommences”, as the draft strategy states, then the viability of the gene pool is at risk.

The significance of this special genetic purity of the Fraser Island dingo seems to have been overlooked in the final 3 actions recommended in the draft management strategy which refer to relocation destroying and culling. FIDO is therefore strongly opposed to these three actions.

.

2. Keeping dingoes in the wild

2.1 Keeping Dingoes in the Wild: There is little acknowledgment that dingoes have a right to remain on Fraser Island in the wild. This is an a very important principle. It is not stated in any objective.

Dingoes have roamed free on Fraser Island probably since they first appeared in Australia which is at least thousands of years. Therefore, dingoes have a right to continue to roam freely over the island within the constraints of any wild animal which has learnt to be wary of other predators such as humans in their natural environment.

2.2 Saving a wild population in the wild: This organization does not want to see the Fraser Island dingo gene pool preserved only in wildlife parks or zoos or in special enclosures on Fraser Island. The establishment of large dingo free areas while it could be administratively convenient would be unacceptable. However, having said that this organization believes that it is important to try to ensure that dingoes do not become dependent on humans. Therefore they should be discouraged from areas where there is likely to be unnatural close interactions with humans. FIDO therefore would like to see more attempt made to deter dingoes from frequenting the settlements and camping areas such as Central Station and Lake McKenzie.

FIDO is vigourously opposed to any form of enclosure and artificial feeding programs. This is only encouraging a naturalized animals to behave unnaturally. Furthermore the Thylacines became extinct because they were hunters and would not accept being fed in a zoo. While dingoes are opportunistic feeders and will accept any handouts, it is still unnatural to hand feed them.

The loss of dingoes in the wild on Fraser Island would represent a much greater tragedy than the loss of the European wolves, because whereas wolves threatened humans in their domestic circumstances, Fraser Island dingoes only represent threats to humans in their recreation. We see the need to recognize and state these principles categorically in the final form of the management strategy.

Recommendation: In view of the above FIDO urges that a new section be written into the Strategy which addresses all of the issues relating to dingo population, the characteristics, the changes during the past century, and the need to maintain a viable population in the wild.

 

3. Population

We need a much better idea of the Fraser Island dingo population. We need to know the dynamics of reproduction and replacement rates, distribution of the population, the degree of interbreeding and an understanding of the reasons for any changes.

3.1 Accurate data needed: Because of the apparently critical size of the gene pool, there is an urgent need to have more precise information about the current population both in a macro and a micro sense.

More detailed work is needed to accurately determine:

(a) the current population in total,

(b) the distribution,

(c) the annual loss deaths of marked animals,

(d) the recruitment of new animals to the population on an annual basis and

(e) the identity of individual animals to that their behaviour can be observed.

.

3.2 Tagging: We believe that it is necessary to have a more precise estimate of numbers on Fraser Island even if this may mean tagging of every individual. This would then enable a better understanding of the numbers and the distribution and assist in identifying individuals.

The process of tagging also has other potential implications for dingo management which are discussed below. Depending on how it is done it could help reinstate a greater caution of humans and encourage them to keep their distance. This organization is aware that the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service tagged every crocodile in the East Alligator River as part of its program to better manage the largest single population of estuarine crocodiles in the world. If it was possible to tag every crocodile in this part of Kakadu 20 years ago, it should be possible to tag the estimated 100 dingoes on Fraser Island before whelping. The results of that tagging which was done almost 20 years ago continues to yield valuable research results in helping understand the behaviour of those animals. We believe that crocodiles are a more dangerous and difficult animal to catch and tag than dingoes and therefore this should be a priority task to any ongoing research program.

Recommendation: A humane system of tagging should be established. All dingoes on Fraser Island should be tagged to enable them to be readily identified. The objective of tagging would be also to provide more precise data on the actual population numbers and to assist in further research on animal behaviour.

.

4. Environmental Changes

The Draft dingo management strategy makes no reference to the environmental changes which have occurred on Fraser Island during the last century. A reference to old photographs and Petrie’s Fraser Island memoirs will show that there have been very significant environmental changes to the whole island during the past 80 years. Petrie’s observations are confirmed by all people who knew Fraser Island before the 1930s. These observations are also borne out by photographic evidence.

It is FIDO’s belief that these environmental changes have very significantly impacted on the dingo food sources.

4.1 Understorey changes: In “Early Days on Fraser Island 1913-1922”, Petrie described a number of changes. He described the lack of understorey on the island. Evidence of this is demonstrated by the number of horses which the island accommodated. Petrie estimated numbers as high as 2000.

With the change in the fire regime the understorey has caused not only the loss of grass but also the loss of a number of small mammals such as bandicoots. For example, “Bandicoots were fairly plentiful in the 1915 to 1920s in the Wanggoolba area,” Petrie said.

4.2 Changes to the traditional Fire Regime: FIDO attributes the loss of habitat of small mammals, which would have been traditional dingo food, to the changes away from the traditional Aboriginal burning regime. There is strong evidence to link the growth of the dense woody understorey, and in turn the reduction in small mammal population, (and in turn the decline of Fraser Island’s dingo population) with the absence of fire particularly in the tall forest where fire was deliberately excluded for more than a century.

Recommendation: FIDO believes that Fire Management Plan for Fraser Island to return the island to a habitat which is more suitable for small mammals and in turn for dingoes should be developed and implemented as a matter of the highest priority

4.3 Tradition hunting on beaches: Petrie also said that then dingoes used to eat wongs (eugaries) from the beach and fractured shells were regularly found in dingo droppings. It is apparent the use of the beach by so much beach traffic has denied this source of food to dingoes and / or they have lost this traditional hunting skill.

FIDO believes that some more research should be undertaken to identify ways which would encourage dingoes back to this traditional food sources such as wongs from the beach.

.

5. Modifying the Animal Behaviour

The major problem seems to result from the changed behaviour of animals to humans. FIDO contends that to a large extent this changed behaviour is human induced. In this section, FIDO focusses on what needs to be done to modify animal behaviour.

5.1 Domestic Animals Attacked: Petrie and others referred to the fact that domestic animals were vulnerable to dingo attacks. “I have seen working bullocks bogged in the peat swamps. … The dingoes started eating them from the rear.” (p59) and “… my horse Moses was freshly bogged and already dingoes were circling around him…” (p 60) The writer has recorded oral history of dingos cornering brumbies in the surf. There are many stories of dingoes attacking and eating domestic dogs in the 1970s until domestic dogs were banned from Fraser Island. However, despite the predatory behaviour of dingoes towards other mammals, there are no records or reports of dingoes representing threats to humans on Fraser Island.

5.2 Loss of Fear of Humans: FIDO attributes the recent behaviour of dingoes to the fact that dingoes have lost their fear or wariness of humans. That the change dingo attitude is apparent from this recorded Petrie anecdote: “Recently when I camped out on the island, I heard something close by. I sat up in my swag. In the moonlight, I saw two dingoes about 15 feet away. I picked up a bit of wood and tossed it towards them. The dogs trotted to the stick and smelt it. It was a far cry from the days when they would have fled at my first move.” (p 60) Similar stories were reported by other early visitors to Fraser Island.

5.3 Problem Not Confined to Fraser Island: This behaviour change has only happened in the last fifteen years but the boldness of the dingoes continues to grow manifesting itself into an increasingly serious problem. The problem is coincidental with changes to dingo behaviour in other Australian National Parks with significant dingo populations. This was demonstrated by the Azaria Chamberlain case at Uluru. However, similar patterns are now being observed at Kakadu and in Jabiru township where dingoes refuse to be chased away as the writer observed as recently as February, 1999.

5.4 Feeding is Not the Only Problem: The Draft Management Strategy makes a case for feeding dingoes as the main reason that dingoes have lost their fear. FIDO has reason to believe that it is not only feeding which has transformed dingo behaviour. Dingoes have been fed by humans on Fraser Island for at least 50 years in the writers experience. Ignoring the past history is to overlook the underlying cause for this quite dramatic change in behaviour from one of wariness of humans to one of boldness.

5.5 Tagging to aid research: As mentioned above, if there are only 100 animals now left on Fraser Island, then tagging every animal is not an insurmountable problem and it will greatly assist identifying rogue animals and in studying animal behaviour. It should be noted that on Maria Island where detailed studies are made of the Tasmanian native hens, every animal in the vicinity of Darlington is tagged and these tags are observed to identify individuals when studying behaviour. The whole estuarine crocodile population in the east Alligator River section of Kakadu National Park was also caught and tagged.

5.6 Tagging to Discourage Approaching Humans: Normally animals who are trapped are very wary of approaching humans again. This is particularly true of cats, foxes and dingoes. However, some animals welcome the gentle treatment after trapping and back up again and again to be caught. The trapping must be done humanely but in ways which dramatically increases the wariness of approaching humans. Each animal should be trapped and tagged in ways which subsequently discourage them from approaching too close to humans.

5.7 Destroying Rogues: As indicated above, this organization is opposed to the destruction of rogues. We are more alarmed because by our estimates more than 30 animals have been destroyed over recent years. This great loss to the population has not diminished the occurrence of dingo attacks on humans.

While destruction of rogues is a recognized short term solution such methodology should have been carrying out with more foresight. For example if others in the pack saw a rogue approaching a human or the human approaching the rogues and then seeing the rogue die, this would be soon communicated widely amongst dingos. Instead, in some cases such as following a Happy Valley attack, whole packs were eliminated.

Nothing was gained from this slaughter other than creating a territory soon taken up by other animals which were not witness to the killing of their reasons. Thus, FIDO can’t support such a counter-productive spontaneous reaction.

5.8 Identifying Humans with Unpleasant Outcomes: It is important that when reprisals do occur all animals are able to identify humans with the unwelcome outcome. This will help to reinstate the wariness of humans.

While aversion baits might be important to discourage scavenging for food scraps, this program is unlikely to ensure that dingoes to keep their distance from humans or even attacking them. However, we accept that aversion baiting may reduce scavenging.

5.9 Use of repellents: This organization supports more research to find and develop more effective dingo ultrasonic deterrents. If this is successful they should be used at all significant places where humans congregate such as Lake McKenzie, Central Station and the urban centres to try to keep dingoes out of these places.

.

6. Changing Human Behaviour

The Dingo-Human interaction part of the Strategy should identify the two distinct aspects of the problem. Just as important as causing dingo behaviour to revert to its previous pattern, the public must be better educated by both carrot and stick to recognize that every human has a responsibility to ensure that dingoes keep their distance.

6.1 Camera enticements: FIDO considers that the most overlooked factor has been the fact that dingoes have been increasingly enticed to come closer and pose for the cameras. This enticing of dingoes to approach humans without fear is quite deliberately saying to the animals that they have nothing to fear from humans. FIDO believes that this is even more subtle than feeding the animals as a form of changing animal behaviour and it should be stopped. The change in dingo behaviour to humans seems to occur only on national park and areas where there is no threats to the animals. The increase in the frequency of photography of the animals seems to have contributed significantly.

Recommendation: The QPWS should develop a code of conduct which not only outlaws feeding of dingoes but also one which stops people encouraging dingoes to approach closer than 10 metres to be photographed. This should be enforced with vigour.

6.2 The Blind Eye: It is true that feeding has been a factor but it is also true that a blind eye has been frequently turned towards the feeding of dingoes. On every occasion the author has spent more than 5 days he has observed someone feeding dingoes.

FIDO therefore support the recommendation in the Draft Dingo Management Strategy that feeding will be prohibitted. We just hope it will be pursued with more determination than we have observed in the past.

6.3 More active Interest from the QPWS: This organization also believes that more concern needs to be taken of the reports of dingo attacks on humans. In 1996, the writer’s sister who has been visiting Fraser Island for more than 30 years was subject to an unprovoked attack by an animal on the beach as she was walking alone near the surf edge. She reported it to the Eurong Visitor’s Centre to a completely disinterested staff and she is not even sure that any record was made of her report.

.

7. Destruction, Culling and Relocation

This Organization supports the first four recommendations of the Draft Dingo Management Strategy in principle with some modifications and revision in the light of the above submissions. We particularly believe that more research is warranted to understand the behaviour patterns of particular animals.

FIDO though is opposed to the last three recommendation options in the Draft Fraser Island dingo management strategy, relocation, destruction, and culling. These have all been used regularly over the last five years without any significant benefit in improved dingo behaviour. In fact the dingo behaviour has if anything changed to the dingoes becoming even bolder. While such measures may assuage the injured feelings of the public immediately after any attack by dingoes on humans, it has been demonstrated over the years that they provide no long term improvement in animal behaviour.

Therefore on practical as well as humane grounds, FIDO is opposed to these measures. However, more significantly, in view of the size of the dingo gene pool on Fraser Island of just 100 breeding animals, we do not believe that these measures can be justified on conservation grounds. The preservation of genetic diversity must be one of the foremost objectives of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Thus we are opposed to further reducing the gene pool of Fraser Island’s pure dingoes.

The Fraser Island dingo should not become like the European bears, wolves, and an number of other wild creatures which culled to the point of extinction outside zoos and a few isolated populations because they competed with human populations.>>

.

Ed:  When will government grow up and become wise, accept its stewardship, plan long term and slow down?

.

One Response to “Fraser Island: Bevan Tourism dictates Dingo Culls”

  1. Barbara Pelczynska says:

    Ever since the environmentalists began to use ecotourism as an economic justification for the establishment of national parks and business realized that ecotourism has the potential to become a money spinner, the ecological damage from visitors to national parks began to escalate. Tourism like mining is very destructive to the natural environment as habitat is destroyed for the very animals that attract tourist to parks.

    If the financial losses due to the degradation of ecosystem services were taken into consideration, we would realize that ecotourism is run at a considerable financial loss.

    So this is a very good and timely article, especially as the current Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy is being reviewed and the damage from the tourists’ industry has now escalated to the point of becoming ecologically unsustainable. This problem is very well elaborated in the article.

    From the photos it is obvious that the majority of tourists to Fraser Island are not interested in the natural environment but in having a “good time” which could be provided by virtual entertainment in such places as Loona Parks.

    Regrettably, I find both the contents and the “An Ecologically Respectful Custodial Strategy for Fraser Island”, title of the reproduced FIDO’s “A Draft Dingo Management Strategy for Fraser Island” unacceptable as the proposed draft strategy contains many points that are only a slight variation of the current Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy which I find to be detrimental to the dingoes’ pack cultural and long term survival, i.e. points like food aversion, tagging every dingo, justification of the loss of European wolves, identifying humans with unpleasant outcomes (Animal behaviour is very complex; identifying humans with unpleasant outcomes can result in increased animal aggression as in my opinion happened with the introduction of the Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy) and so on, which clearly are hardly “ecologically respectful” as implied by the title.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

RFS negligence immune from prosecution, why?

December 17th, 2012
McIntyres Hut Bushfire in Brindabella National Park, New South Wales, 8th January 2003
It was manageable then, but negligently left to burn for days by the Rural Fire Service

.

On 8th January 2003, reported lightning strikes had ignited remote fires in the Brindabella National Park inside New South Wales and in Namadgi National Park in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).

Ten days later, the McIntyres Hut Bushfire along with the Bendora Bushfire, the Stockyard Spur Bushfire and the Mount Gingera Bushfire, coalesced and burnt out of control into the south-western suburbs of Canberra.

It tragically became The 2003 Canberra Firestorm.

  • Four people perished
  • 435 people were injured, many suffering horrific burns
  • 487 homes and 23 commercial and government premises were destroyed
  • 215 homes, commercial premises, government premises and outbuildings were damaged
  • Mount Stromlo observatory (an institution of international renown) was destroyed
  • An inestimatable number of animals (livestock and wildlife) were killed
  • Almost 70% of the ACT, some 157,170 hectares were burnt

.

Canberra Firestorm looms
[Source:  SOSNews.org, ^http://www.sosnews.org/newsfront/?p=236]

.

The ACT Coroner Maria Doogan conducted an inquiry into the cause, origin and circumstances of the bushfires and inquests into the four deaths associated with those fires.  On December 2006, her findings: ‘The Canberra Firestorm‘ concluded that “failure to aggressively attack  the fires in the first few days after they ignited” was a key factor that led to the firestorm.

Coroner Doogan was also scathing of the ACT’s Emergency Services Bureau (ESB) for:

  1. Failing to attack the fires that had been burning for 10 days before they reached the capital.
  2. Failing to warn residents of the danger early enough, saying this exacerbated the property losses and caused panic and confusion on the day of the firestorm.

.

But responsibility for fire suppression inside the Brindabella National Park also lay with the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Today ACT Supreme Court Chief Justice Terence Higgins has found that the New South Wales Government (Rural Fire Service) was negligent in the way it tackled the January 2003 blaze.

One of the plaintiffs suing the NSW Government, Brindabella landowner Wayne West said today “We have won the case on negligence, the judge has made a decision the fire should have been fought and could have been fought in a different manner, and we win the case at common law.’’

Mr West, along with plaintiffs represented by insurance giant QBE Insurance, have been suing the NSW Government for gross negligence.

But the NSW Rural Fires Act 1997 confers immunity from liability if the Rural Fire Service acted “in good faith”.   This means that even though the Rural Fire Service is guilty of gross negligence, it and its members are immune from prosecution for negligence, becase they can hide behind the NSW Rural Fires Act.

So Chief Justice Higgins has ruled in favour of the NSW Government.

“The result I have reached is that the plaintiffs’ claim must, as a matter of law, be denied,” Chief Justice Terence Higgins said today in an 86-page judgment.

“However, but for the express limitations on the liability which otherwise would attach at common law, those plaintiffs who suffered loss or damage would have been entitled to compensation for their losses.  Effectively, they are deprived by statute of what would, under the general law, be regarded as just compensation.”

“The legislature has, however, spoken so as to exempt NSW from such liability, and the courts must apply the law as parliament has decreed it.”

The judge agreed with the plaintiffs that the NSW Rural Fire Service embraced an “inadequate and defective strategy.  “The question is, however, whether the adoption of that strategy, albeit negligent, was ‘so unreasonable that no authority could properly consider the act of omission to be a reasonable exercise of its functions’.”

The judge identified failures in strategic planning, but made no criticism of the front-line firefighters “at any level”.

Mr West said while the ultimate decision was “devastating” the case was never about the money.

“That fire was allowed to burn, there could have been action taken to prevent the fire escaping or being enticed to escape.  The fires shouldn’t have burnt the houses and [caused] the injuries and the four lives in Canberra, that’s what we were here for from day one.’’

When asked what lessons should be taken from the firefighting response Mr West replied:

.

“Get in the fire immediately and look at the fire – don’t look at it 50 kilometres away.”

Bushfire Progress – click on image
(The top red patch is the McInture Bushfire inside NSW)

.

Alan Conolly, representing the QBE clients, said they would read the judgment and consider their options.

“There’s always, in a case as big as this, there’ll be issues we have to look at, and at the moment we first have to read the judgment and advise our clients,” he said.

West has immediately flagged a decision to challenge this decision and to take that fight to the ACT Court of Appeal.

“We have only fallen over in the courtroom today on an Act the [NSW] government put in place…the state doesn’t have a duty of care to an individual, and that’s where we fell over today”, West said.

.

[Source:  ‘West to appeal after losing 10-year court battle’, 20121217, by Louis Andrews (journalist), Canberra Times, ^http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/west-to-appeal-after-losing-10year-court-battle-20121217-2biea.html]

.

ACT Bushfire Memorial (Duffy)

.

Editor’s Comment:

.

The general community has right to expect that government, as the public authority, must be at all times properly diligent in performing its duty it owes to its dependent community.  This is perhaps no more so than its implied fiduciary duty to protect the community from harm.   Outside the military, the emergency services duty of government – be it police, ambulance, fire, disaster response – stands at the forefront of this fiduciary duty because this is where the risk and consequence of harm to the community is greatest.  This is the basis of community trust in government  and the rule of law, otherwise as a society we resort to ‘every man for himself’ chaos.

Under Division 1, Section 63 of the Rural Fire Act 1997, there is a prescribed duty of the public authority (the Rural Fire Service) to prevent bush fires, and this necessarily includes taking:

any other practicable steps to prevent the occurrence of bush fires on, and to minimise the danger of the spread of a bush  fire on or from any land vested in or under its control or management.

Allowing the known McIntyre Fire to burn for multiple days without diligent suppression response has been found by the ACT Coroner and the ACT Supreme Court to have been negligent.  Since this fire was situated on Crown Land in New South Wales, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service owed a fidicuary duty of care to the community to ensure resource capability, to diligently suppress and properly extinguish the fire, which it fundamentally failed to do. 

The Rural Fire Service owed a higher duty of care to the community to properly extinguish the fire, than with other concerns such as cost mitigation by avoiding the cost of aerial suppression.    It is a breach of that duty of care when a public authority under-resources and under-performs emergency management response.  It is shameful that governments continue to hide behind legislation and volunteers when the risk and consequences of bushfire and wind changes are known.  The community has a right to entrust government capability and to trust legislation to serve the bests interests of the community, not the convenience of government bureaucracy.

The McIntyre Fire started off some distance from human settlement and would have been operationally treated as a defacto hazard reduction.  It is past time that the high duty of fire fighting to protect life and property extends to protecting the valuable ecological integrity of the community’s national parks.  The interface between life, property and national parks has become intertwined and all it takes is a change of wind for bushfire risk to morph from being ‘contained’ to being ‘catastrophic’.

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]    ACT Coroner Report into the Canberra Firestorm 2003, published December 2006, >Read Report,  (PDF, 400kb)  ^http://www.courts.act.gov.au/resources/attachments/The_Canberra_Firestorm_%28VOL_I%29.pdf

.

[2]   ACT Supreme Court Decision:  ‘WAYNE WEST & ANOR v THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [2012] ACTSC 184 (17 December 2012),  >Read Decision, (PDF, 2.5MB), ^http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/

.

[3]   Related article on this website:   2006 Grose Valley Fires – any lessons learnt?

.

One Response to “RFS negligence immune from prosecution, why?”

  1. Barbara Pelczynska says:

    I agree with the Editor’s comments about the government’s fiduciary “duty to protect the community from harm”. But, in the case of bushfires, the fiduciary duty to “prevent bushfires” needs to be restricted to the case of preventing people from igniting of fires and spreading of fires that have been ignited by humans or nature, as it happened in the Canberra case. Otherwise this fiduciary duty could be used to justify the use of ecologically inappropriate fire regimes, such as fuel reduction burns, that are detrimental to the conservation of biodiversity.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Ban ALL Australia’s Live Animal Exports

December 11th, 2012

Australia’s live animal trade cannot be trusted.  Animal cruelty offence after offence ignored by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) has become recidivist.

This organisation has not only neglected the welfare of Australian animals to slaughter time and again, it has sacrificed the standards of the Australian industry it supposedly represents.

Australian farm animals are being shipped live overseas to be tortured by cultures below Australian morality.

Australia’s entire live export industry needs to be shut down for it systemically being complicit in persistent animal cruelty and immorality.

If that means Australian participating farmers and their families go broke, so be it.  Australian farmers complicit in this immoral, unscrupulous and unaccountable trade are unworthy of profiting from it.  They are no better than those of previous centuries who profitted out of the misery of the human slave trade or the child sex trade.

Australia’s Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Joe Ludwig, ultimately responsible needs to be sacked for recklessly presiding over repeated Australia’s agricultural trade immorality and for his gross incompetence in failing to address systemic animal cruelty for now years.

Senator Joe Ludwig’s legacy of prevailing over an immoral trade and doing nothing but allow it to perpetuate
 

The entire Meat and Livestock Australia Board of Directors needs to be sacked:

  • Chairman, Robert Anderson
  • Managing Director, Scott Hansen
  • Director, Michelle-Allen
  • Director, Lucinda Corrigan
  • Director,  Greg Harper
  • Director,  Christine-Gilbertson
  • Director, Geoff-Maynard
  • Director,  John-McKillop
  • Director, Peter Trefort
  • Director, Rodney-Watt

 

.

Dodgy Ships, Dodgy Trade

.

WARNING:   THE FOLLOWING VIDEOS CONTAIN IMAGES OF ANIMAL CRUELTY

.

‘Indonesian torture of Australian Cattle in June 2011’

.

.


.


‘Shocking undercover live export investigation: Tnuva, Israel

[Source: ‘‘Shocking undercover live export investigation: Tnuva, Israel’, 20121211, ^http://AnimalsAustralia.org/israel ]

.


.


‘2011 Video shows cattle cruelty’

[Source:  ‘Video shows cattle cruelty’,  by Richard Willingham, The Age newspaper, 20110825, ^http://www.theage.com.au/national/video-shows-cattle-cruelty-20110824-1jab6.html]

.

Click Above Image to link to site to watch video

.

<<New vision obtained by Fairfax appears to show cruelty to cattle in Israel, one of the countries to which Australia exports its livestock.

Fresh evidence of cruel treatment of Australian livestock in foreign markets has raised new doubt about the ability of the government and industry to ensure the welfare of animals exported for slaughter.

Footage obtained by The Age shows filth-covered cattle being belted with spike-tipped poles as they are unloaded from a cramped truck in Israel. More than 43,000 cattle were exported there in 2010.

It comes as cattle exports to Vietnam are about to resume after a seven-year break, raising concern among Labor backbenchers and Animals Australia because of Vietnam’s animal welfare record.

An image taken from the video appears to show cattle being belted with spike-tipped poles. 

The film, shot by Israeli group Anonymous for Animal Rights on August 12, shows cattle covered in faeces after their long boat voyage. ”It was quite obvious that the handlers had no training at all, and that the poles had nails or something sharp on the end,” spokeswoman Hila Jerem said.

While the footage is not as confronting as that from Indonesia, welfare groups say it is further evidence of how little Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) know about foreign markets but are still willing to promote exports to them….>>

.

Immoral Trades are Not Worth a Cent
Some would sell their children for money too.

.

The immoral, illegal Sex Trade still flourishes in some countries too.

.

 

3 Responses to “Ban ALL Australia’s Live Animal Exports”

  1. Ruth Weston says:

    When will the labour government listen to the people. Stop this obscene, immoraland blatently cruel trade once and for all. There are other alternatives.

  2. Barbara Pelczynska says:

    My thanks to The Habitat Advocate for publicizing this issue.

    I am full of admiration for individuals and groups like the Animal Australia and the Israeli’s Anomalous for Animal Rights, who campaign against cruelty to animals within their own as foreign countries. For without their dedication, this cruel treatment of animals would be not only more widely spread than it is today, but judging by our livestock export industry, countries like ours would soon revert to the pre-reforms treatment of animals.

    For like Deborah Bird Rose point out on p. 28 of her book “Wild Dog Dreaming, Love and Extinction” points out “We know about this monstrosity, but most of us don’t experience it. We are outside the feedlot and the abattoir, and we know how to keep our distance”.

  3. Amanda Scully says:

    Footage from Jordan shows that animals are treated horrendously and experience pain and suffering when exported live. It takes a long time to turn practices around. Ending exports of live animals stops their pain, fear and suffering.

    Thank you for your support to protect animals from harm.

    Thanks again

    Amanda

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

China’s trade in illegal timber, worst on Earth

December 5th, 2012

Click above image to play video:  ‘Appetite for Destruction: China’s trade in illegal timber’

 .

China is the World’s Top Buyer of Illegal Timber driving deforestation.

<<BEIJING: China, emergent superpower and the world’s second biggest economy, is effectively standing on the sidelines as its exponential growth devastates forests in a trade worth billions of dollars a year.

In the new report Appetite for Destruction: China’s Trade in Illegal Timber, launched today in Beijing, the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) reveals that China is now the single largest international consumer of illegal timber, importing wood stolen by organised criminal syndicates on a massive scale.

In the past 10 years, significant progress has been made to protect shrinking forests around the world from the devastating impacts of illegal logging. As major timber-consumers, the United States the European Union and Australia have now taken legislative steps to exclude stolen timber from their markets, while key producer countries such as Indonesia have dramatically improved enforcement against illegal logging.

Yet although China has taken vigorous and laudable steps to protect and re-grow its own forests, it has simultaneously nurtured a vast and ravenous wood processing industry reliant on importing most of its raw materials.

“China is now effectively exporting deforestation around the world,” said Faith Doherty, head of EIA’s Forests Campaign.

“Any further meaningful progress to safeguard the forests of the world is being undermined unless the Chinese Government acts swiftly and decisively to significantly strengthen its enforcement and ensure that illegal timber is barred from its markets.”

EIA investigators has been conducting field investigations into flows of illicit timber, including working undercover and posing as timber buyers, since 2004 in China, Indonesia, Laos, Madagascar, Mozambique, Myanmar, the Russian Far East and Vietnam.

Appetite for Destruction examines the extent and impacts on these countries of China’s voracious consumption, and features several case studies from countries whose forests are being severely depleted.

“This report makes a clear and concise case for action by China,” added Doherty. “The burden of making any further progress in the international fight against deforestation, illegal logging and the criminal networks behind it now rests squarely on its shoulders.”>>

.

Chinese have become the worst deforesters on Earth

.

Read Report:    >Appetite for Destruction – China’s Illegal Trade in Timber.pdf   (1.6MB)

.

1. The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) is a UK-based Non Governmental Organisation and charitable trust (registered charity number 1145359) that investigates and campaigns against a wide range of environmental crimes, including illegal wildlife trade, illegal logging, hazardous waste, and trade in climate and ozone-altering chemicals.

2. Read and download Appetite for Destruction at http://www.eia-international.org/?p=6379.

[Source:  Environmental Investigation Agency, 62-63 Upper Street, London N1 0NY, UK, ^www.eia-international.org, ^https://vimeo.com/54229395   ]

.

The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) is an independent campaigning organisation committed to bringing about change that protects the natural world from environmental crime and abuse.

 

 

One Response to “China’s trade in illegal timber, worst on Earth”

  1. Barbara Pelczynska says:

    I agree with Faith Doherty form EIA that “China is now effectively exporting deforestation around the world”. This trade is tolerated by other countries because they depend on and gain from the economic boom of China, a boom that is at the expense of the destruction of natural environment which is ecocide at an enormous scale and it is criminal that it is being allowed to continue.
    Illegal logging is an extremely lucrative business, so there is really no will on the part of governments to stop it because if there was a will, it would have been stopped long time ago. It is obvious that deforestation is going on as can be seen from satellite images. It is part of the perpetual economic growth syndrome which in a finite world, like population growth, is an oxymoron.
    This deforestation will continue till people stop deluding themselves and accept the fundamental truth that we are part of the natural environment and depend on its life supporting ecosystem services and that economy is part of our society and so is dependent on both us and the natural environment. Only then we will seriously begin to protect the natural environment.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Anti-Poaching – noblest 21st Century army career

November 29th, 2012
The Ivory Wars: Heavily armed platoons of rangers at Garamba National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo wage war against elephant poachers.
[Source: ‘Africas elephants are being slaughtered in poaching frenzy’, Documentary by By Ben Solomon, The New York Times,
Watch Video: ^http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/world/africa/africas-elephants-are-being-slaughtered-in-poaching-frenzy.html]

.

Following years in Iraq and Afghanistan, two Australian ex-Special Forces operators set up the IAPF in Zimbabwe.  Their frontline now is global conservation.

.

IAPF ?

.

International Anti Poaching Foundation   (IAPF)

.

<<Damien Mander had a military career of nine years, three years of which were spent in Iraq.  He has invested his life savings including the sale all investment properties to fund the start up and running costs of the IAPF for the first few years.

In 2010 Damien’s long time best mate, Steven Dean, sold up everything and put the funds into the IAPF – moving to Africa to help with the struggle.  Collectively, they have invested the savings of seven years of working in war zones towards conservation.  Africa is now their frontline.  The IAPF is now funded through public donations, grants and fundraising activities.

They are totally commited using drones, night vision and thermal imaging to get the poachers.>>

.

.

 

 

<<The IAPF’s academy in Zimbabwe can only train Zimbabwean or regional nationals for work in IPZs (Intensive Protective Zones) within the country.

However, the IAPF accredited academy in South Africa (across the southern border) run by Eco Ranger, does give participants the opportunity to be trained from the grassroots level. No previous experience is necessary. (Then ambition and service rests with you).  Contact JC Strauss at Eco Ranger ^www.ecoranger.co.za for more information on upcoming courses.>>

JC

.

In 2005 – 2007, JC trained and developed 350 Wildlife Rangers for Limpopo Parks Board in South Africa and headed the Anti-Poaching teams covering 53 Protected Areas that brought down rhino and elephant poaching to 0% for 3 consecutive years.

Enough said.  Find Out More:

^http://www.iapf.org/en/

.

>EcoRanger Info Pack.pdf    (1.5MB)

Rhino face chainsawed off for its horn while still alive to sell for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)
[Source:  ^http://soiledearth.com/images/south-african-rhino-poaching-rhino-wars]

.

TCM Poachers murder baby Rhino
[Source:  ^http://soiledearth.com/images/south-african-rhino-poaching-rhino-wars]

.

.

Concern Grows Around South Africa’s Legal Trade in Live Rhinos

Is there something sinister lurking behind South Africa’s legal rhino trade?


<<As the Rhino death toll continues to rise in South Africa, disconcerting information regarding the country’s legal rhino trade continues to emerge.

One of the most well-known (“alleged”) exploiters of legal trade loopholes is Dawie Groenewald of the notorious “Groenewald gang“, who legally purchased a significant number of Rhinos prior to his arrest in September 2010.

Investigators later found a mass grave of 20 de-horned Rhinos on Groenewald’s property.

Groenewald’s heinous activities are part of a deadly scourge – using Rhino trade loopholes to launder rhino horn – and there is no shortage of others like him, who are more than willing to cash in on backward medicinal myths about ‘Rhino horn‘.

Let’s take a look at the scams and schemes.


Public documents obtained from South Africa’s Parliamentary Monitoring Group website indicate that in 2008, a “Mr. J.F Hurne” purchased at least six Rhinos at auction and subsequently delivered them to a “Mr. D. Groenewald”.

(Note:   Currency values are hown in South African Rand – currently comparable with the US Dollar)

.

More recently, there is unconfirmed information circulating via mass email and social media networks of a 2011 transaction between Dawie Groenewald and a “Mr. John Hume” (a prolific game rancher mentioned in Bloomberg) involving the sale of nine rhinos. Update 07/14: It is now confirmed by IOL that Groenewald “has a contract” to buy nine rhinos. If the deal goes through, three male rhinos will be sent to Groenewald’s Prachtig property and the six female rhinos will be sent to Hume’s ranch.

Hume is (by his own admittance to Bloomberg) an advocate of legalized trade in rhino horn, and connected to professional hunter Peter Thormahlen, who was twice arrested for suspected involvement with Vietnamese “pseudo-hunts.”

Even Peter Thormahlen has been prosecuted for leading hunts feeding the horn trade. In 2006 at the Loskop Dam Nature Game Reserve, he paid a token fine after his Vietnamese hunter casually told an official that he did not know how to shoot.

The second time, in Limpopo province in 2008, Thormahlen was indignant and fought the citation in court with the help of lawyer Tom Dreyer.

(Thormahlen’s second case was dismissed.)

.

‘A significant number of Rhinos’

.

According to the publicly available document referenced above, which shows a series of rhino transactions from 2007 to 2010, Dawie Groenewald and/or a “Mr. D. Groenewald” seems to have acquired a significant number of rhinos between 2008 and 2010.

Take a look:

.

2008

Six rhinos previously referenced:

2009:

Here’s a rather large acquisition worth noting (2009):

.

2010:

.

Meanwhile, copies of permits granting Dawie Groenewald permission to “hunt or convey” White Rhinos – issued despite his arrest in 2010 – are circulating via email and have now surfaced on various social media networks, such as Facebook ®.

Take a look at the permit copies here.   (If you are using Facebook ®, you can easily locate these images.)

.

Laundering Rhino Horn with Hunting ‘sick safaris’

.

Just days ago, a Thai national named Chumlong Lemtongthai was arrested – along with five Thai “hunters” – in South Africa.

Lemongthai had allegedly arranged rhino hunting expeditions for the purpose of buying the horns from the hunters. He would then ship the horns abroad to be used illegally in traditional Chinese medicine.

However, the identity of the South African trophy hunt operators who aided Lemongthai remains unclear.

.

 

With the right kick-arse arsenal..
..like this Finnish-engineered Sako TRG42, with an effective range of  over 800 metres against poachers.. ‘ our troubles here would be over very quickly’.
.
Politics is always a case of deals and priorities and enough money is always available.

.

WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS IMAGES OF HUNTING

.

Click Image to play video of Vietnamese TCM Poachers
[Source: ^http://www.rhinoconservation.org/2011/07/13/concern-grows-around-south-africas-legal-trade-in-live-rhinos/]

.

To learn more about how South African hunting ‘sick safaris’ are used as a front for trafficking illegal rhino horn, check out Mules Hunting Rhinos? Sinister Scam Unfolds in South Africa.

.

Vietnam and China’s TCM Rhino Horn Poaching Scheme

.

It is highly unlikely that China’s multi-million dollar rhino farming scheme could have developed without South Africa’s willingness to legally export over 100 live Rhinos to China between 2007 and the present.

Despite the fact that China and Vietnam had already been implicated as a destination for illegal rhino horn sourced from Southern Africa , at least 18 Rhinos were exported to China from South Africa during a six-month period in 2010.

 

TCM Rhino Deals

.

What is particularly disturbing about these multiple Rhino deals between South Africa and China is that in addition to the escalation in Rhino killings between 2008 and the present, there was no shortage of indicators that should have been noted by the country of export, South Africa.

.

The first was in 2007, when the Chinese Government infused Traditional Chinese Medicine quack research with USD $130 million – five times more than the previous year’s budget – to “standardize and modernize” traditional Chinese medicine.  How did this not pique the interest of authorities?

.

Ed:  Chinese Quack ‘Medicine’ competes for immorality with Japanese ‘Scientific Whaling Bullshit’ – how backward and depraved can primitive human superstitions lower themselves to?

Africans should be a wake up to East Asian barbaric persecution of precious African wildlife’

.

Then in 2008, a Chinese research proposal revealed the location of China’s “rhino farm” and “horn harvesting experiments”, along with intentions to circumvent CITES. For additional information, see:

Another Chinese research proposal recommends the acquisition and stockpiling of rhino horn. Check out the following to learn more:

.

Why does this matter?

.

This matters because there is growing evidence which strongly suggests that widespread abuse of South Africa’s existing legal trade loopholes is fueling and feeding the demand for rhino horn, and camouflaging the illegal rhino horn trade.

The extent to which the illegal rhino horn trade is being aided and augmented by legal trade in South Africa – both in live rhinos and trophy exports – is indeed unsettling, and is certainly deserving of deeper scrutiny.>>

[Source: ^http://www.rhinoconservation.org (http://s.tt/1aQ3A) ]

.


.

Further Reading:

.

[1]    Anti-Poaching Intelligence Group Southern Africa, ^http://www.antipoachintelligence.co.za/home

.

[2]    Warriors For African Rhino, ^http://www.warriorsforafricanrhino.org/

.

[3]    Outraged South African Citizens Against Poaching (OSCAP), ^http://www.oscap.co.za/

.

[4]    Bush Warriors, ^http://bushwarriors.org/

.

[5]   ‘Ivory Wars‘, National Geographic, March 2007, ^http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/03/ivory-wars/fay-text

.

<<The dead elephant, a huge bull, lay on his side, right leg curled as if in wrenching pain. Dirt covered the exposed eye—magic done by poachers to hide the carcass from vultures. The smell of musth and urine, of fresh death, hung over the mound of the corpse. It was a sight I had seen hundreds of times in central Africa. As I passed my hand over his body from trunk to tail, tears poured down my cheeks. I lifted the bull’s ear. Lines of bright red blood bubbled and streamed from his lips, pooling in the dust. His skin was checkered with wrinkles. The base of his trunk was as thick as a man’s torso. Deep fissures ran like rivers through the soles of his feet; in those lines, I could trace every step he had taken during his 30 years of life.

This elephant’s ancestors had survived centuries of raiding by the armies of Arab and African sultans from the north in search of slaves and ivory. He had lived through civil wars and droughts, only to be killed today for a few pounds of ivory to satisfy human vanity in some distant land. There were tender blades of grass in his mouth. He and his friends had been peacefully roaming in the shaded forest, snapping branches filled with sweet gum. Then, the first gunshot exploded. He bolted, too late. Horses overtook him. Again and again, bullets pummeled his body. We counted eight small holes in his head. Bullets had penetrated the thick skin and lodged in muscle, bone, and brain before he fell. We heard 48 shots before we found him.

Souleyman Mando, the commander of our detachment of mounted park rangers, was silent. I sensed a dark need for revenge. The feeling was mutual.

“Next time, you will get them,” I offered.

He feigned a smile. “Inshallah,” he said.>>

.

TCM Poacher – Open Season!
Inshallah !

.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Koala Habitat is not a renewable resource

November 27th, 2012
Shrinking Koala Habitat – completely dependent upon the whims of Australians, if we give a toss.
Being systematically destroyed by O’Farrell Government Loggers across coastal New South Wales, Australia

.

Koala Habitat is being trashed across New South Wales

 
[Source:  The following article was published as ‘When trees fall in the forests’, by Ben Cubby, Sydney Morning Herald, 20101112, ^http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/when-trees-fall-in-the-forests-20101111-17pgt.html]

.
<<The dull, grinding roar of logging trucks has become background noise in the hills around Eden, on the New South Wales south coast. Equally familiar is the sight of people photographing the loggers’ loads as they are hauled down to the local woodchip mill and on to ships bound for Japan. The campaigners are looking for signs of tree trunks that have hollows and may have supported native sugar gliders or owls.

About 1,200 kilometres north, in the subtropical rainforest near Casino, botanists and zoologists are poring over maps and Google Earth, tracking breaches of logging conditions – trees cut down inside protection zones, trees felled that supported endangered wildlife or nourished other flora.

The tit-for-tat battle in the forests has led to frustration on all sides, with forestry workers complaining of ”manic hatred” directed at them. Anti-logging activists say the damage to state forests is systematic and routine, as established rules in the NSW Forest Agreements are disregarded.

”It’s not exactly a surprise to us that there are so many breaches because the fox is in charge of the hen house,” says Lisa Stone, a campaigner with South-East Forest Rescue. ”It keeps happening over and over again. You have got areas where they are supposed to be taking out single trees and then you go there and it’s practically clear-felled.”

For each state forest targeted for logging, a plan must be drawn up that leaves some trees untouched, in accordance with the ”environmental protection licences” issued to logging contractors working for the state government agency, Forests NSW.

.

What the hell is Government’s Forests NSW doing to Wildlife Habitat?

 

Forests NSW Greenwash:

.

“Forests NSW is committed to ensuring a supply of timber from NSW State forests today and into the future while also protecting other forest values such as biodiversity, clean air and water and public access for recreation.  We are committed to running a safe and profitable business for the people of NSW.”

“The NSW (O’Farrell) Government has announced it will make Forests NSW a state owned corporation (SOC). Forests NSW will remain publicly owned and the nature of the business and business relationships will remain largely the same but the governance structures will change to improve the organisation’s commercial performance.

As a state owned corporation under the direction of a skilled commercial board, Forests NSW will be able to focus sharply on its core business of growing and harvesting timber to meet the community’s needs for hardwood and softwood products while still providing recreational opportunities for the people of New South Wales.”

[Source:  ^http://www.forests.nsw.gov.au/]

.

Ed:     So to the O’Farrell Government the forests are only about human needs – a babyboomer mindset, just like in the Old Testament.  “..And God said unto them be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”  [Bible, Old Testament, Book of Genesis 1:28]   ..and humans have been self-righteously buggering the planet ever since.

.

<<The many-layered oversight system produces a lot of work for the handful of NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water staff, some of whom have found themselves visiting the same logging sites repeatedly.

Forests NSW stressed that a warning letter can refer to separate breaches, which partly explains why the number of warnings issued to Forests NSW is so much lower than the number of times rules get broken.

Nonetheless, department staff have told the Herald that guidelines are often applied indifferently by loggers and some contractors are serial offenders. Forests NSW has also lost staff through voluntary redundancy this year which, some workers argued, affects its ability to police logging contractors.

A spokeswoman for the Environment Department said logging licences contained ”strict provisions to protect the environment, threatened species and its habitat”. Audits of logging operations are carried out every month as part of its compliance program.

”[The department] is concerned about the number of recent alleged breaches being reported in the south-east of NSW and in response is conducting several comprehensive field audits of Forests NSW work in the region. If any of the alleged breaches are found to be substantiated then the [department] will take appropriate action.”

New spice has been added to the deluge of investigations by the recent so-called ”peace deal” in Tasmania, which saw major logging companies, including Gunns, agree to stop logging in old-growth native forests. The deal also included an effective end to large-scale burning of native timber as a source of renewable energy, a process that is now permitted in NSW. The National Association of Forest Industries said it would oppose any effort to transfer the Tasmanian deal to mainland Australia.

A woodchip company, South-East Fibre Exports, is planning to build the state’s first wood-fired electricity plant at Eden, burning ”offcuts”. The company says opposition to its power plant is driven by people with the broader agenda of ending logging in native forests altogether. This seems likely to be true. South-East Fibre Exports blames anti-logging campaigners for setting up a fake website that mocks the company’s proposal, and a campaigner against the power plant, the former fashion designer Prue Acton, found an electronic bugging device in her home earlier this year. No one knows who is responsible for planting the bug, and there is no suggestion it is linked to the logging dispute. Police are investigating.

The NSW Primary Industries Minister, Steve Whan, said he had faith in the forestry companies and Forests NSW. ”Allegations of ‘systematic damage’ are overstated,” says Whan. ”The majority of the alleged breaches in question are minor in nature – with little to no impact on the environment.”

Former NSW Labor Minister for Minerals and Forest Resources, Steve Whan,
who also had Primary Industries, Emergency Services and Rural Affairs – i.e. politically imposed conflicts of interests.
.

In southern NSW, the forestry organisation is regularly scrutinised and was operating within the rules.

Forests NSW southern region has received no penalty notices and not one case has been brought to prosecution for at least the past three years.  ‘As a local member in the area as well as the Minister for Forest Resources, I personally welcome the intense environmental scrutiny that forestry operations in the area are subjected to. It is very important that any logging operations in the region comply with all the environmental conditions in place.”

Documents maintained by Forests NSW staff show there were 13 breaches recorded in south-eastern NSW last year.The breaches include cases of ”lack of care taken by operator”, ”operator did not see marking tape” and ”poor rigour in completing surveys”. Some could be explained by mishaps such as a vehicle slipping on a steep hillside into a protected area. In one case a logging contractor cut down trees in an area marked as ”old growth forest” because a global positioning system device had run out of batteries.

Of the 13 recorded incidents, eight resulted in verbal warnings to forestry contractors and one, in which the estimate of damage made by environment department staff differed from Forests NSW’s, resulted in a warning letter. Environmental damage was in every case assessed to be ”nil” and no remedial action was taken.

In part, the mistakes could be put down to forestry workers working to tight deadlines in rugged terrain.

But anti-logging activists are not prepared to be that charitable. The parallels with the situation in northern NSW are remarkable. In the state forests around Casino and Tenterfield, a group called North-East Forest Alliance has identified damage to stands of trees inhabited by koalas, stuttering frogs, sooty owls, powerful owls, golden-tipped bats and yellow-bellied gliders. The same types of breaches are evident, with contractors failing to follow guidelines about properly marking up vulnerable trees. Trees up to two metres wide at the base were cut down inside an area of rainforest described as a ”special protection zone”.

Five sets of allegations, covering dozens of alleged individual breaches in separate forests, were sent to the Environment Department early this year. Staff undertook a joint investigation with the forestry agency, and Forests NSW said a ”compliance response team” had been established.

South-East Forest Rescue recently surveyed state forests at Mogo, near Batemans Bay, and found recent logging in areas that were supposed to have been preserved, including an Aboriginal cultural site and conservation areas. In a report sent to the government, it alleges that many hectares of forest that should have been off-limits to loggers had been cleared.

The group has also walked through south coast state forests Tantawangalo, Yambulla, Glenbog and Dampier, collecting photographs of logging sites. Earlier surveys of the various regions by the Environment Department show habitat supporting sooty owls, yellow-bellied gliders, square-tailed kites, giant burrowing frogs, bent wing bats, tiger quolls, glossy black cockatoos and powerful owls may have been damaged.

The group’s surveys have been passed on to the Environment Department. The department said its own studies in the area are expected to run until mid-November.  Stone says the group wanted Whan to visit the logging locations they had surveyed.>>

.


.

Koala habitat faces bulldozing in Victoria

[Source:  ‘Super-koala’ habitat faces bulldozing, by Claire Miller, 20051002, ^http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/superkoala-habitat-faces-bulldozing/2005/10/01/1127804696947.html]
Susie Zent in the area slated for road-widening 2005
(Photo: Cathryn Tremain)

.

South Gippsland  (2005):

.

<<Critical habitat supporting the so-called Strzelecki “super-koala” and endangered powerful owls is to be bulldozed as part of a controversial road-widening project in South Gippsland.

Several hundred trees, many home to koalas and with hollows suitable for nesting owls and other wildlife, will be lost, despite consultants warning the Latrobe City Council that the damp forest habitat is virtually irreplaceable in a region largely cleared of native vegetation.

The local member for Morwell, Brendan Jenkins, is appealing to Environment Minister John Thwaites for an 11th-hour reprieve after local conservationists lost their case in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Latrobe Council wants to widen Budgeree Road so that logging trucks servicing plantations can pass each other. Trucks now travel one way down the road and return via another route. Budgeree Road is also a tourist drive to Tarra Bulga National Park.

The tribunal initially raised strong objections to the project, near Boolarra, in the face of evidence that the council took little account of the vegetation affected, that traffic volumes did not justify the scale of the works, and that a redesign could save most trees. Then, in a surprise turnaround, it approved the project last month with minor amendments.

.

‘Strzelecki koalas are a genetically superior group that may hold the key to the species’ long-term survival in Victoria.

All other koalas in the state are descended from a handful of individuals transferred to French Island more than a century ago, a few years before koalas were hunted to near-extinction on the mainland.’

.

Ed:  This is a ecological cry of impending Koala regional extinction and a representative indictment of Australia’s deliberate and evil extermination of its wildlife.

.

The French Island colony was used to repopulate the state, but inbreeding is now becoming apparent. The Strzelecki koalas, however, appear to be a remnant of the original and genetically diverse mainland population.

The roadside forest is rare in its own right, being of “very high conservation significance”. This category has legislative protection under the Native Vegetation Management framework, and can be cleared only under exceptional circumstances.

The loss of hollow-bearing trees is also listed as a threat under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. Consultants from Biosis Research told Latrobe Council it would be difficult to find other damp forest areas that could offset the loss of roadside remnants.

Susie Zent, from Friends of the Gippsland Bush, said VCAT had set conditions for the roadworks based on a mistaken classification by the Department of Sustainability and Environment as to the vegetation’s significance. She said the VCAT decision could be set aside if the department admitted to an error of judgement and requested amendments to its permit conditions.

Latrobe’s chief executive officer, Paul Buckley, said he expected VicRoads to sign off the final plans within three or four weeks. He said the additional width was needed to improve safety.

A spokesman for Mr Thwaites said the department was waiting for final details from the council, particularly in relation to offset measures. “Offset measures are required to ensure there is no overall loss of areas that have ecological significance,” he said.>>

.

Strzelecki Koala Endangered
(South Gippsland Victorian, Australia)

.

<<Of major concern due to the logging and clearing activities of both Hancock Timber Resource Group and PaperlinX is the long term survival of populations of the Strzelecki and South Gippsland Koalas whose entire habitat is now owned by these companies.

An investigation carried out by Dr Bronwyn Houlden, School of Biological Science, University of New South Wales, 20th March 1997 and 6th April 1998 confirmed that the genetic pool of these koalas has not been compromised. Dr Houlden indicates that on a national basis koalas generally are not considered to be threatened. She advises that this assessment has unfortunately led to an extremely simplistic view of conservation of biodiversity in the species.

Through extensive analysis by herself and her collaborators she has revealed that the species is composed of highly differentiated populations with low levels of gene flow between populations throughout their range. The Strzelecki Koala population constitutes a separate management unit and is significant in terms of management of biodiversity on a regional and state basis. Dr Houlden found that the Strzelecki Ranges had the highest level of genetic variation, of any Victorian population she has analysed. This is important, given the low levels of genetic variability found in many populations in Victoria, which have been involved in the translocation program.>>

.

[Source:  ‘Strzelecki Koala Endangered’, Hancock Watch (conservation group), ^http://hancockwatch.nfshost.com/docs/koala.htm#content_top]

 

.

 


 

.

The Critical Habitat Truth behind Hancock Timber Resource Group

.

Foreign-owned and controlled Hancock Timber Resource Group,  claims publicly that its Victorian timber plantation operation, Hancock Victorian Plantations (HVP) is committed to…

“environmental responsibility is underpinned by the company’s environmental policy and management system, forest stewardship program, best management practices, which include internal and external performance measures, and active community consultation program, working with groups such as Landcare, field naturalists and Waterwatch.”

.

Hancock Victorian Plantations claims…

“HVP sets its own high standards, its operations are monitored by local shires, water catchment management authorities, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and the Victorian Department of Environment and Sustainability. The company is also subject to regular audits to maintain its Australian Forestry Standards (AFS) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certifications.”Around 70 per cent of HVP’s total landholdings are sustainably-managed plantations, growing largely on land that was previously cleared for farming. The company maintains the remaining 30 per cent of its holdings for plantation protection, conservation and other community values.In the Strzelecki Ranges, HVP has set aside almost half of its land from timber production, managing this native forest for conservation.”

[Source:  ^http://www.hvp.com.au/environment-conservation]

.

Editor:   It all sounds wonderful coming from this United States industrial logger. But since when has anyone trusted US corporations?  Read the snapshot log below.

.

Road hit female koala with broken jaw. Had to be euthanised after 6 weeks.
Urgent research is required to determine breeding populations, location and numbers. Logging seriously impacts on long term populations of this animal.
[Source:  Hancock Watch,  ^http://hancockwatch.nfshost.com/docs/koala.htm#content_top]

.


.

Snapshot of a month’s logging of Koala Habitat:

[Source:  ^http://hancockwatch.nfshost.com/docs/04sep.htm ]

.

South Gippsland, Victoria (October 2002) – systematically being destroyed for corporate profit by United States multi-national ‘Hancock Timber Resourse Group’:

.

Jeerlang West Road Strzelecki Ranges

  • Locals outraged by removal of native vegetation – Koala Feed Trees. Koala corridor destroyed. Koalas are now not sited in this area. 8 Koalas have died in this area in the last 12 months.

.

Strzelecki Ranges (Jeeralangs)

  • Eucalypts globulus – Bluegum (4ssp.) Southern Blue Gum – subspecies globulus. Restricted on the mainland to South Gippsland and Otways. Road works resulted in logging of older trees. Prime koala habitat destroyed by Grand Ridge Plantations/Hancock. A recent change in management will hopefully result in the end of this type of practice.

.

Strzelecki Ranges (Jeeralangs)

  • Prime koala habitat destroyed without permit application by Grand Ridge Plantations/Hancock. Destruction of the rare Globulus globulus.

.

93-41 Creswick plantations

  • Creek crossing over Anderson’s Gully which feeds into Creswick Creek. Tullaroop Water Catchment. Drinking water for Maryborough, Carisbrook, Talbot, Adelaide Lead, Alma, Havelock, Majorca and Betley. Sediment enters waterways mainly via creek crossings and roads.

.

93-41 Petticoat Plantation

  • Tributary of Anderson’s Gully in the headwaters of the Murray Darling Catchment (Loddon River). Logging machinery driven straight through creekline.

.

93-41 Petticoat Creek

  • Closeup of machinery entering tributary of Anderson’s Gully in the Tullaroop Water Catchment. Note build up of sediment which will wash into gully after rain. Note also buildup of stagnant water.

.

93-41. Petticoat Plantation

  • Tullaroop Proclaimed Water Catchment. Machinery access into Anderson’s Gully tributary.

.

Morwell River East Branch/Strzelecki Ranges

  • Creek crossing with sediment washing into waterway. Note also Slender Tree Fern an FFG listed species.  Australia’s first FSC Assessment team in the Strzelecki Ranges. Discussing roading/landslide issues in the Jeerlangs.

.

Traralgon Creek in the Latrobe River catchment (Strzelecki Ranges)

  • Recent pine logging with limited bufferzone in a pine plantation by Grand Ridge Plantations/Hancock. As part of the Friends of the Gippsland Bush/Australian Paper Agreement of 1997, 50 m buffers of native vegetation will be established along Traralgon Creek after pine logging. There were also problems with a creek crossing at this location, which can be seen eroding into the creek in this photo.

.

Tributary of Jeeralang Creek with cool temperate rainforest (Strzelecki Ranges)

  • A Myrtle Beech tree is in the centre of the gully. The person in the photo is holding a twig with Myrtle Beech leaves taken from the base of a tree in the gully. According to the 1997 8 Point Agreement 50m buffers along Jeeralang Creek will be replanted with indigenous species. This area should not have been logged at all. Cool Temperate Rainforest needs much greater buffer for its long term protection and survival.

.

Jeeralang West Road

  • (Non-plantation) Blackwood and Austral Mulberry cut down along roadside easement which is Crown Land. Logged by Grand Ridge Plantations/Hancock.

.

Billy’s Creek Catchment/Strzelecki Ranges

  • Twenty metre buffer should be reinstated at this site as in accordance with Billy’s Creek Water Supply Catchment, Plan no 1870. (Ideally the entire slope should be retired from timber production due to its steepness).

.

Billy’s Creek catchment/Strzelecki Ranges

  • 20m buffers should be reinstated in this plantation area.

.

Jumbuk Road/ Strzelecki Ranges

  • Logging of roadside buffers/easements. Wildlife corridors destroyed at this site as well as the head of a gully feeding into Billy’s Creek.

.

93-29 Scarsdale Plantation  (Woady Yaloak catchment)

  • What is the long term impact on water yield from pine plantations in this catchment?

.

93-41 Petticoat plantation (Headwaters of the Murray Darling catchment [Loddon River])

  • Tullaroop Water catchment is currently at 30% of its capacity due to primarily to drought. Hancock logged 223ha of pine in this catchment in 2001/2. Much of the land within the Creswick State Forest has in the past been affected by gold mining activities. Stabilisation of the worst affected areas was achieved with softwood plantations. Will sediment from these mining sites be disturbed by current plantation logging. Tullaroop catchment supplies towns such as Maryborough with drinking water. What is the impact of logging on water quality and quantity in this catchment?

.

Korweinguboora Reservoir catchment.

  • Recently logged by Hancock. Note lack of buffer zones for this wetland feeding into the Reservoir. This reservoir supplies Geelong and other towns with drinking water.

.

Korweinguboora catchment  (Geelong’s water supply)

  • How can Hancock guarantee that herbicides and fertilser residues will not enter Geelongs water supply? Note lack of buffers surrounding this drainage line.

.

A tributary of Creswick Creek in the Tullaroop Water supply catchment

  • Note lack of creek buffer zones and ripping of soil into creek banks. Will herbicide residues enter water from this site? What impact will operations at this site have on quality of water for all species including people? Is this sustainable?

.

Tributary of Creswick Creek in Tullaroop water supply catchment

  • Over 200 ha of pine plantations in this catchment were logged in 2001/2. What is the long term effect of fast rotation plantations on water quality and quantity? Pines cut out of creek itself and creek banks at this site.>>

.


.

Bligh Labor Government flogs off Queensland’s forests for $603M to Hancock

.

[Source:  ‘State sells off Forestry Plantations Queensland for $603 million to Hancock Queensland Plantations’, AAP, 20100518, ^http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/state-sells-off-forestry-plantations-queensland-for-603-million-to-hancock-queensland-plantations/story-e6freqmx-1225868108050]

.
.
<<The Queensland Labor government has announced the sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland – the first transaction in its controversial asset sales.  Treasurer Andrew Fraser said the 99-year licence for the timber plantation business would be sold for $603 million to Hancock Queensland Plantations.  The sale price is well in excess of the $500 million that had been anticipated.  Mr Fraser said he signed the contract on Tuesday morning.

“By reaching agreement on a price of $603 million, this exceeds original expectations and is great news for Queensland taxpayers,’‘ Mr Fraser told state parliament on Tuesday.  “This is the first of the five commercial businesses to be sold, licensed or leased to the private sector, as the government reforms the state balance sheet and builds a stronger Queensland economy.”

He said award staff would have their jobs guaranteed for three years.  Mr Fraser said Hancock Queensland Plantations, a company managed by Hancock Timber Resource Group on behalf of institutional investors, had won the right to grow and harvest the trees.

Crown plantation land on which the majority of the business sits will remain in government ownership.  The sale includes about 35,000 hectares of freehold land, which is about 10 per cent of the total estate.

Hancock Timber Resource Group manages more than two million hectares of timberlands worth approximately $US8.5 billion ($A9.7 billion) across the United States, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.>>

.


.

NSW Government accused of logging Koala Habitat

[Source: ‘NSW govt accused on koala habitat logging’, 20111118, ^http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8375719/nsw-govt-accused-on-koala-habitat-logging] .

<<The opposition has accused NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker of allowing the logging of koala habitats on the state’s mid-north coast.  Opposition environment spokesman Luke Foley said the minister had received a “scathing” letter from the local councils protesting her decision to allow logging of core koala habitats in the area.

“These councils are traditionally pro-development – but even they are alarmed that Robyn Parker is allowing a national icon to be endangered thanks to her ‘unsound ecological approach’,” Mr Foley said in a statement on Thursday.>>

He said that…

On October 27 Ms Parker said “logging protects koalas”

.

Editor:  Robyn Parker has not got a clue about her Environment portfolio.  She is another teacher-turned-politician and clearly insecure.  Last month Parker sacked the head of her department, Lisa Corbyn, and has been through five press secretaries. 

The opposition’s environment spokesman Luke Foley:  “When will Premier O’Farrell do the decent thing and get a new environment minister?”

[Source:  ‘Controversial Environment Minister Robyn Parker creates a climate of change’, by Andrew Clennell, State Political Editor, The Daily Telegraph, 20120121, ^http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/minister-creates-a-climate-of-change/story-e6freuy9-1226249892102]
 
Embattled: Ms Parker – thinks she’s only accountable to herself and Premier O’Farrell.
Picture: Kristi Miller Source: The Daily Telegraph

.


.

New South Wales allowed logging in Koala Habitat

.

[Source:  ‘NSW allowed logging on koala habitat’, by Rosslyn Beeby, Science and Environment Reporter, Canberra Times, 20110210, ^http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/nsw-allowed-logging-on-koala-habitat/2072043.aspx]

.

<<The NSW Government has allowed 2,000 heactares of koala habitat to be logged at Coffs Harbour in northern NSW, despite a local koala conservation plan endorsed by the local council, a Senate inquiry has heard.

One of Australia’s leading koala researchers, Alistair Melzer, has accused federal environment bureaucrats of doing little to avoid ”an escalating conservation crisis” as koala populations decline.

Dr Melzer, who heads Central Queensland University’s koala research centre, told the Senate environment committee inquiry it appeared that Canberra’s bureaucrats ”do not seem to be sensitive to the real state of the environment”.

The six-month inquiry, into the conservation status and sustainability of Australia’s koalas, is investigating threats to the future survival of the species.

In his submission, former Coffs Harbour City Council deputy mayor Rod McKelvey said the NSW Department of Environment’s private native forestry division granted logging permits which resulted in the loss of 2000ha of ”core koala habitat” protected by the council’s koala conservation plan. Mr McKelvey said the department subsequently argued the plan ”did not fall under” NSW environmental planning policy.

”I do not want to be included in the generation who stood by and did nothing while we systematically destroyed koala habitat, making it almost impossible for them to live here,” he said.

Gunnedah farmer Susan Lyle, who has koalas on her three properties, raised concerns about a mining exploration licence issued for open-cut coal mining in the region.

”Our koalas will be decimated. This mining licence is primarily in isolation and to allow such a development is sheer lunacy … There are many, many other resources that can be used for energy, but there is no replacement for the koala,” she said.

.


.

Federal Forest Enquiry a Sham

.
[Source:  ‘Federal Forest Inquiry a Sham’, 20111130, North East Forest Alliance, ^http://nefa.org.au/]

.

<<Conservation Group, North East Forest Alliance (NEFA), is outraged at the bias of the Federal House of Representatives report ‘Inquiry into the future of the Australian Forestry Industry’ and its refusal to consider the timber supply crisis and the over-logging of north-east NSW’s public forests.

NEFA spokesperson, Dailan Pugh, said that most of the evidence presented in NEFA’s 111 page submission was ignored by the inquiry on the grounds that it “criticised the industry”. “What they didn’t ignore they misrepresented. This pretend inquiry was a sham” he said.

“The Commonwealth is party to the North East Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) and claims that it satisfies its national and international obligations for the protection of world heritage, national estate and threatened species.

“While national heritage values were meant to be addressed as part of the RFA, they were not, so the Commonwealth gave the NSW Government an extra two years to complete the process.  A decade later and there has still been no assessment and the Federal Government does not care.

“Similarly the RFA was meant to provide protection for nationally threatened species.  The evidence we presented, such as the illegal trashing of a population of the nationally endangered fern Lindsaea incisa at Doubleduke, that was meant to be protected by a 50m buffer, was ignored because we were being ‘critical’.

“What is most astounding is that the inquiry refused to consider the evidence we presented on the current timber supply crisis due to the over-commitment of wood from north-east NSW’s public forests.

“Ever since new Wood Supply Agreements for timber from public land were given to sawmillers in 2004 Forests NSW have not been able to supply the committed volumes,” Mr Pugh said.

“The NSW Government’s recklessness in issuing these new Wood Supply Agreements has already cost taxpayers millions of dollars to buy back committed volumes and to compensate BORAL for Forests NSW’s failure to supply.  As the crisis worsens, taxpayers exposure to multi-million dollar compensation claims grows.

“In vain efforts to meet shortfalls and reduce their payouts Forests NSW have been over-logging plantations, cutting trees before they mature, increasing logging intensities, logging stream buffers, and logging trees and areas required to be retained for threatened species. They are cutting out the future of the industry and causing immense environmental harm in the process.

“It is appalling, that an inquiry dealing with forestry has completely ignored this crisis and recommended that the Commonwealth Government condone and support this grossly unsustainable and irresponsible logging.

“Local Page MP, Janelle Saffin features in the inquiry’s report despite her electorate being one of the worst affected by the timber supply crisis, rampant illegal logging and widespread forest dieback.

“We call upon Janelle to please explain why the Commonwealth continues to ignore the gross over-logging, fails to identify and protect national heritage values, refuses to take action on the illegal logging of the habitat of nationally threatened species and refuses to consider the dieback of tens of thousands of hectares of public forests in her electorate.   She needs to tell her constituents what she is going to do about it”” Mr. Pugh said.>>

.


.

South East Forest Rescue cranking it in south-east NSW

.

[Source:  ‘South East Forest Rescue cranking it in south-east NSW’, 20120118, ^http://www.thelaststand.org.au/tag/southeast-forest-rescue/]

.

<<South East Forest Rescue have taken some crackerjack action this morning, halting forestry operations with a giant tripod and tree sit structure to highlight illegal logging in the Yambulla State Forest, south of Eden. The logging compartment where breaches have been identified by SEFR contains records of nationally listed endangered species such as glossy black cockatoos, smokey mice, southern brown bandicoots, tiger quolls, eastern pygmy possums, bent wing bats, yellow-bellied gliders, gang gang cockatoos and white-footed dunnarts.

“The response from Forests NSW shows the complete lack of regard for the licence conditions that Forests NSW and their contractors must abide by. The licence conditions for threatened species and habitat conservation are not being adhered to, even though the conditions are grossly inadequate” said forest campaigner Lisa Stone.

“We have reported the breaches in this compartment to the Office of Environment and Heritage,” said Ms Stone.  “We stated last time that the probability of further breaches in this compartment if harvesting continues is high given that this logging contractor is a repeat offender and that FNSW still is not complying with the licence conditions” said Ms Stone.>>

.


.

‘NSW failing to protect koalas: Labor’

.

[Source:  ‘NSW failing to protect koalas: Labor’, 20111027, AAP republished in the Sydney Morning Herald,  ^http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/nsw-failing-to-protect-koalas-labor-20111027-1mlnt.html]

.

<<The NSW Liberal government is failing to protect koalas by allowing logging in remaining habitats, the opposition says.  Environment spokesman Luke Foley accused Environment Minister Robyn Parker of breaking an election promise to protect koalas after logging went ahead at the Bermagui State Forest on the south coast.

Logging also started last week at Boambee State Forest on the mid north coast, one of the last habitats for the vulnerable species in the area, Mr Foley said.

“For you to fail to respond and fail to intervene is a gross breach of your election policy to protect our national icon,” Mr Foley said at a budget estimates hearing in Sydney today.  “Surely the precautionary approach would be for you as Environment Minister to stop the logging of this key koala habitat?”

Ms Parker denied breaking any election commitments, and said the government was working hard to protect koalas.

“When it comes to forestry, we are about getting a balance and protecting our native species. We are working very hard on them,” she said.  “We have written to Forests NSW recommending a precautionary approach to managing impacts on koalas in the Boambee State Forest…The agreement that allowed logging to take place had been signed by the previous government, Ms Parker said.  “Perhaps you should go back and look at what was going on when your government signed up to that agreement.”>>

.


.

Koala habitat cleared to make way for more houses

.

[Source: ‘Koala habitat cleared to make way for more houses’, 20121127 (today), by Nicole Fuge, Sunshine Coast Daily, ^http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/koalas-lose-vital-coast-habitat/1637085/]

.

<<More than 100 hectares of koala habitat has been cleared to make way for more houses, another nail in the coffin for one of Australia’s icons.

Work has begun clearing the land behind Aussie World and the Ettamogah Pub for a 334-lot rural residential development.

Despite more than 30% of the 145-hectare site secured for environmental reserve and 12 hectares of revegetation to offset present clearing, Sunshine Coast Koala Wildlife Rescue volunteer Ray Chambers fears it’s not enough.

Mr Chambers said the area’s koala population was already fragile and the removal of so many trees would have a disastrous affect.

“We do have the odd koala in part of the Palmview area, it’s not a great deal but we know they are there,” he said. “From Forest Glen to the Caloundra turn-off is a koala corridor.”

.

Mr Chambers said there were only about 100 koalas left on the Coast, representing 18% of the Queensland population.

.

A council spokeswoman said despite approval of the development pre-dating an introduction of state-wide regulatory provisions for koala conservation, the council and Department of Environment and Heritage Protection officers had enforced koala protection measures and vegetation offsets.

Developer guidelines include:

  • More than 30% of the original site secured in environmental reserve.
  • Traffic calming, speed bumps, and fauna under and overpasses installed to minimise car strikes.
  • Building envelopes to be enclosed with dog-proof fencing, leaving the balance of each lot free for fauna movement.
  • About 12ha of revegetation, including planting koala food trees, to be carried out to offset the clearing.

The spokeswoman said a fauna spotting catcher had also been present during clearing.>>

..

Ed:  What chance do Koalas have?

.

[Source:  National Geographic, ^http://natgeotv.com.au/tv/koala-hospital/gallery.aspx]

.

2 Responses to “Koala Habitat is not a renewable resource”

  1. David Hemsley says:

    Your indigenous species don’t stand a chance.You are getting rid of their habitat by deforestation and removing the ground from underneath them by mining. If nothing is done to stop business/politicions bull-dozing your children’s future, the only thing that will be left of Australia for you and them will desert meeting beaches strewn with paper in the form of dollars that you can neither eat or enjoy by sharing.

  2. David Hemsley says:

    Tell the Australian government they will be ashamed throughout the world if they let this/their Icon disappear from the planet. China stepped in and did research and saved the giant panda from extinction why won’t the Australian Government do the same thing for the Koala?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Blue Mountains Cultural Centre uses Old Growth

November 26th, 2012
The pergola entrance to the Blue Mountains Cultural Centre
..using Old Growth ‘Tasmanian Oak’?

.

^Old Growth?

.

The new Blue Mountains Cultural Centre opened at 30 Parke Street, Katoomba in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney on Saturday 17th November 2012.

The Blue Mountains Cultural Centre is a very large complex for the town of Katoomba and the sparsely populated region.

It features:

  • an art gallery
  • state-of-the-art library
  • an extensive scenic viewing platform towards the Jamison Valley (and World Heritage wilderness beyond)
  • seminar room
  • multi-purpose workshop
  • coffee shop
  • gift shop
  • meeting rooms
  • an interpretative centre for the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

.

It is a “purpose built cultural precinct; a place that simultaneously celebrates our unique sense of place, and allows us to explore what it means to live here, and share those understandings with those who visit our home.”

[Source:  ‘Grand Opening – Blue Mountains Cultural Centre’, (special feature), Blue Mountains Gazette, 20121114, p.2]

.

The Jamison Valley Wilderness
Contains natural stands of giant old growth Turpentines (Syncarpia glomulifera)
and old growth Mountain Blue Gums (Eucalyptus deanei)

.

Planning for the Blue Mountains Cultural Centre commenced way back in 1998 and there was much local community consultation in the planning process including with local Aboriginal people.

The building was commissioned by the local Blue Mountains Council and funded mainly by the New South Wales Government by more than $6 million.  The Cultural Centre was designed by architects Hassell & Scott Carver Architects and built by Richard Crookes Constructions.

The Cultural Centre, now built, is positioned on the top (roof) level of a building which has, in the main, been constructed for a new relocated Coles supermarket and shopping arcade.

Blue Mountains Cultural Centre entrance

.

While the now operational purposes of the Blue Mountains Cultural Centre promise to have considerable merit, there are two notable drawbacks associated with the recent construction of this building, which should not be forgotten to history.

.

1.    The Entrance Pergola appears to be of  ‘Tasmanian Oak

.

The timber pergola at the entrance has the distinctive colour and texture of ‘Tasmanian Oak‘, which is a timber industry generic marketing term used to group old growth native hardwood timber from a choice of one of the following three botannical species:

.

  1. Eucalyptus regnans
  2. Eucalyptus obliqua
  3. Eucalyptus delegatensis
The distinctive colour and texture of Tasmanian Oak  (treated and stained)
These large posts and the beams have few knots and clearly have been sourced from the heartwood of very large and old native trees.

.

A ‘Tassie Oak’ comparison..

Tasmanian Oak in Tasmania
A new ten inch (wide) ‘Tasmanian Oak’ post inside Oatlands’ restored mill, Tasmania
It was probably from local Messmate/Stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua), treated but not stained
(Photo by Editor, September 2009,  Photo Free in Public Domain)

.

The name ‘Tasmanian Oak‘ was originally used by early European timber workers who believed the eucalypts showed the same strength as English Oak.  When sourced from Tasmania, the wood is called Tasmanian Oak.  When sourced from Victoria, the wood is called ‘Victorian Ash‘ or ‘Mountain Ash‘.

This uniquely Australian hardwood timber is light-coloured, ranging from straw to light reddish brown.  It continues to be used in the building trade for panelling, flooring, furniture, framing, doors, stairs, external structures, joinery, reconstituted board and even as pulp for paper.

As the tallest flowering plant in the world, Eucalyptus regnans grow up to 100 metres tall.  Whereas Eucalyptus delegatensis and Eucalyptus obliqua do not reach these heights; instead reaching about 70m with the tallest trees achieving 90 metres, which is no less considerable.

Read More about >Tasmanian Oak

[Source:  Tasmanian Government, ^http://www.tastimber.tas.gov.au/species/pdfs/A4_ESB_Tasoak.pdf]

.

Nevertheless, all these species comprise timber logged from native old growth forests, not plantations.  Such forests are rare and fast disappearing due to excessive logging practices – their dependent ecosystems, flora and fauna included.

The Pygmy Possum (Genus Cercartetus)
Once prolific, but now threatened across the Blue Mountains heathland escarpment
due to misguided escarpment Government Arson labelled as ‘Hazard Reduction’
To the Rural Fire Service anything natural is phobically deemed to be a ‘hazard’.
[Source: ^http://www.warra.com/warra/research_projects/research_project_WRA116.html]

.

So logging and use of this native old growth timber is unsustainable, despite Australian timber industry certification claims, which are proven dubious.

Tasmanian Oak/Mountain Ash (Eucalyptus regnans)
Its original distribution mainly from Tasmania
To a lesser extent variants come from the high rainfall areas of East Gippsland, Dandenong Ranges to Black Spur Range and the Otway Ranges.

.

A likely justification for the use of Tasmanian Oak for the Blue Mountains Cultural Centre’s entrance pergola is that Tasmanian Oak being a strong hardwood timber is load-bearing with few knots.  While steel or another composite material could have been used, it is probable that the Tasmanian Oak was inadertently chosen for its aesthetic appeal, ignoring sustainability criteria.

Tasmanian Oak, like many Australian native hardwood timbers, is durable, termite and borer resistant, and fire resistant which makes its suitable for such an external structure, plus it is readily available and so a comparatively affordable building material.  The timber has few knots because it is sourced from old growth trees, perhaps aged over one hundred years, and so the trunk is very tall and straight between the tree’s base and the branch canopy.

The Blue Mountains are dominated by Eucalypt forests, which contain flammable natural eucalyptus oil. Although the Cultural Centre is wholly within the township of Katoomba some distance from native forests, compliance with the Building Code of Australia would have mandated the building material options for the pergola, including the requirement that the external structure be of fire resistant material.  Since the Cultural Centre is situated within the least risk buffer zone of a designated Bushfire Prone Area, the choice of building material would also have would been mandated under the Australian Standard AS 3959 ‘Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas’ and with local council’s Blue Mountains Local Environment Plan 2005 – Regulation 86 : ‘Bush fire constructions standards’.

Under AS 3959, the construction of new buildings, the use of timber as an extrenal building material is permitted in the lower risk levels provided the timber species must comply with minimum crierian for Fire Retardant Treated Timber.   The following timber species have been tested and found to meet the required parameters without having to be subjected to fire retardant treatment:

  • Blackbutt
  • Merbau
  • Red Ironbark
  • River Red Gum
  • Silvertop Ash
  • Spotted Gum
  • Turpentine

.

[Source:  The Australian Timber Database, ^http://www.timber.net.au/index.php/timber-in-bushfire-prone-areas.html]

.

The above hardwoods are all threatened species and are disappearing fast; all Australian bar Merbau which is being depleted from old growth Indonesian rainforests.

The timber used in the Cultural Centre’s timber pergola is arguably of Tasmanian Oak, which is known variously by the common names Mountain Ash, Victorian Ash, Swamp Gum, or Stringy Gum.

It is a species of Eucalyptus native to southeastern Australia, in Tasmania and Victoria. Historically, it has been known to attain heights over 100 metres (330 ft) and is one of the tallest tree species in the world.  In native forests, the two species (Mountain Ash & Alpine Ash) that are combined to produce Victorian Ash are known to be two of the world’s largest trees, occasionally growing to over 100m in height.

Yet all these Australian native hardwood timbers are increasingly becoming scarcer as they are logged for such fire-resistant application.   

.

The Building Standard for Fire Retardant Treated Timber is driving deforestation of Australian Old Growth Forests.

.

These old growth timbers are the dominant canaopy species for wet eucalypt forests restricted to cool, deep soiled, mostly mountainous areas to 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) altitude with high rainfall of over 1,200 millimetres (47 in) per year. The trees grow very quickly, at more than a metre a year, and can reach 65 metres (213 ft) in 50 years, with an average life-span of 400 years.

Eucalyptus regnans is the tallest of all flowering plants, and possibly the tallest of all plants, although no living specimens can make that claim.The tallest measured living specimen, named Centurion, stands 101 metres tall in Tasmania.

Before the discovery of Centurion, the tallest known specimen was Icarus Dream, which was rediscovered in Tasmania in January, 2005 and is 97 metres (318 ft) high. It was first measured by surveyors at 98.8 metres (324 ft) in 1962 but the documentation had been lost.  Sixteen living trees in Tasmania have been reliably measured in excess of 90 metres (300 ft).

Historically, the tallest individual is claimed to be the Ferguson Tree, at 132.6 metres (435 ft), found in the Watts River region of Victoria in 1871 or 1872.

Eucalyptus regnans
(marketed as ‘Tasmanian Oak’)

.

The fallen logs continue supporting a rich variety of life for centuries more on the forest floor.   These restricted mountain ash forests provide vital yet shrinking habitat for many of Australia’s threatened species of fauna.

.

2.  Construction created considerable land fill

.

It was observed throughout the construction phase of the Blue Mountains Cultural Centre, that daily large skips of builders waste from the site were loaded alongside in Parke Street.

These commercial skips were consistently yellow in colour and the same size – about six meters long and two meters wide (12 cubic metre capacity).  Typically there were two such skips positioned and loaded with builders’ waste from the construction site each weekday.  This was observed over the course of a year up until August 2012.  They were loaded by bobcat-style machinery with all types of mixed rubbish – concrete, unwanted insulation, scrap metal, rubble, empty cans, you name it.  There was no separation of waste observed for recycling.  It would all have been trucked to landfill – possibly to either the nearby Katoomba or Blaxland waste management facilities, or else off-Mountain somewhere.

Commercial skip used to cart away builders’ waste from the construction site
(Approximate scale)

.

A conservative estimate of the land fill volume generated from the Cultural Centre construction site, which also included the Coles shopping complex, over the course of the year would be 12 cubic metres x 2 skips x 5 days x 42 weeks (generously allowing for 10 non work weeks out of 52) =  over 5,000 cubic metres of land fill!

.


.

Cultural Centre’s Green Credentials

.

The above two environmental impacts are far from encouraging for this high profile community-serving 21st Century building, and within a World Heritage Area to boot.

The interpretative concept is one that is meant to inspire locals and visitors alike.  So these two impacts are concerning and perhaps need to be clarified in the public literature produced by the Blue Mountains Council which commissioned the Cultural Centre.

The public impression promoted by the Blue Mountains Council is that the Cultural Centre is a eco-friendly building deserving praise.

<<It has free wi-fi and features a range of green initiatives including double-glazed windows, solar panels, rainwater harvesting, and low-energy LED lights in the gallery.>>

[Source:  ‘Grand Opening – Blue Mountains Cultural Centre’, (special feature), Blue Mountains Gazette, 20121114, p.3]

.

<<The Blue Mountains Cultural Centre has a range of green (building) features that ensure that its impacts on the World Heritage environment is kept to a minimum.

Some of the features include:

  • A fully insulated roof, double-brick air cavity walls and double-glazed windows assist to insulate the building.
  • Extensive rainwater collection, harvested by the Centre and the Carrington Hotel and stored onsite, in an underground 50,000 litre tank
  • On the roof there are 54, 10kW solar panels to reduce the Centre’s reliance on traditional energy sources.
  • The ‘green roof’ treats a portion of the Cultural Centre’s water run-off (with the aid of a UV disinfection system) that is then used for irrigation and toilet flushing.
  • The Centre is lit with a combination of efficient, long-life lighting sources and lighting zoning to allow separate switching and dimming of areas adjacent to windows.
  • The City Art Gallery uses LED lighting technology to significantly reduce power consumption.
  • The building orientation itself is designed to provide protection to the open courtyard areas from the prevailing westerly winds and exposure to northern sunlight.

.

With these initiatives in place, the Cultural Centre aims to reduce water consumption by 5.5 million litres each year and reduce energy usage of 1.8 million kWh/year — enough energy to power 246 homes in the region.>>

[Source:  Blue Mountains Cultural Centre website, ^http://bluemountainsculturalcentre.com.au/about-us/history/environmental-design-aspects/]

.

A core part of the Blue Mountains Council’s 25 Year Vision for the Blue Mountains region focussed on ‘Looking After the Environment‘:

<<We value our surrounding bushland and the World Heritage National Park.

Recognising that the Blue Mountains natural environment is dynamic and changing, we look after and enjoy the healthy creeks and waterways, diverse flora and fauna and clean air.

 

Living in harmony with the environment, we care for the ecosystems and habitats that support life in the bush and in our backyards.

 

We conserve energy and the natural resources we use and reduce environmental impacts by living sustainably.>>

.

[Source: ‘Towards a More Sustainable Blue Mountains – A 25 Year Vision for the City, Blue Mountains Council ,2000-2025, ^http://www.sustainablebluemountains.net.au/our-city-vision/city-vision-publications/]

.

Ed:  Such are noble goals however outsourced, but if they are dismissed just as  ^’Greenwashing’  :the community message quicky becomes recognised as hollow spin and then any hard earned credibility risks being quickly lost.

.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

error: Content is copyright protected !!
The Habitat Advocate