Once were common – now pose for the commoner! Australia’s Koala
(Phascolarctos cinereus)
.
Australia’s iconic and once prolific Koala is now nationally listed as vulnerable to extinction.
What a despicable indictment of Australians!
<<The Koala was formerly common throughout the broad band of forests and woodlands dominated by Eucalyptus spp. extending from north Queensland to the south-eastern corner of mainland South Australia, Australia (Maxwell et al. 1996). However, the overall distribution of Koalas has been reduced since European settlement. This decline was primarily due to disease, bushfires, and widespread habitat destruction in the early decades of the 20th century.
Commercial poaching of koalas (they called it ‘harvesting‘) took place across the range towards the end of the 19th century and early 20th century (huge numbers, running into the millions, were killed for their pelts for a large export industry in Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland). Koalas were widely hunted during the 1920s and 1930s, and their populations plunged.>>
Backward Queensland was the worst offender. In August 1927, the Koala fur trade saw the Queensland Government declare ‘open season’ on Koalas. Some 600, 000 koalas were shot to make gloves and hats in jut one month. It became known as ‘Black August‘.
1927 ‘Black August’When 600,000Koalas were shot and skinned across Queensland
.
Commercial hunting was banned in Victoria in the 1890s, yet it continued sporadically (and under regulation) in backward Queensland until 1927 (Hrdina and Gordon 2004).
<<The Koala currently ranges from northeastern, central, and southeastern Queensland with patchy populations in western areas, to eastern New South Wales including the coastal strip and highlands of the Great Dividing Range, the western plains and related riparian environments where suitable habitat occurs, Victoria, and southeastern South Australia. The geographic range has contracted significantly due to loss of large areas of habitat since European settlement. In Queensland, extent of occurrence and area of occupancy have contracted by about 30% (Gordon et al. 2006).
Helped by reintroduction, Koalas have reappeared over much of their former range, but their populations are smaller and scattered. Koalas need a lot of space—about a hundred trees per animal—a pressing problem as Australia’s woodlands continue to shrink.>>
(2.6MB, pdf – NB. if slow to open, GoTo: File > Save As.., then open the PDF file from your auto-download folder)
.
[Source: The Decline in the distribution of the Koala in Queensland, G. Gordon, F. Hrdina, R. Patterson, Zoologist Vol 33, 2004,^http://www.rzsnsw.org.au/]
<<Since European settlement, approximately 80% of Australia’s eucalypt forests have been decimated. Of the remaining 20% almost none is protected and most occurs on privately-owned land.>>
Koala reduced range map Ed: Interpretation is Dark Green = known to occur, Light and Mid Green = used to occurDark green is where human population growth is worst!
(Source: ‘Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) Listing’, Australian Government, 2012),
^http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/koala.html]
.
.
Koalas partially listed as ‘Vulnerable’ to extinction
.
In April 2012, Australia’s Environment Minister, Tony Burke, declared that ‘at-risk’ koala populations along Australia’s eastern seaboard ‘vulnerable‘ under Australian national environment law – specifically under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
This ‘EPBC Act‘ remains the Australian Government’s central piece of environmental legislation, providing a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places. The Australian Government’s Department of Environment (etc) is currently developing EPBC Act referral guidelines for the Koala.
<<Rigorous scientific assessment by a variety of experts over the past three years has been reported back to Australia’s lead body on biodiversity conservation, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), which has found that Koala populations particularly in Queensland, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory have declined markedly in recent years to a point where in these areas populations are vulnerable to regional extinction.
In 2011, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee combined available data for Koala populations across their natural range and generated estimates of the decline experienced over the period 1990–2010 by the national Koala population and, separately, the combined Queensland, NSW and ACT population (TSSC 2011bi).
The parameters of greatest uncertainty are the size of the Queensland population in 1990 and rate of subsequent decline, particularly in inland bioregions, and the size of the Victorian population.>>
The following table is a summary of the TSSC assessment of national Koala populations (TSSC 2012p):
<<These are the same regions where rapid ongoing housing development is allowed and encouraged, as Australia’s human population expands uncontrollably.
Mr Burke said “Koala populations are under serious threat from habitat loss and urban expansion, as well as vehicle strikes, dog attacks, and disease…In fact, in some areas in Victoria and South Australia, koalas are eating themselves out of suitable foraging habitat and their numbers need to be managed.”
“That is why the Scientific Committee recommended to me to list the Queensland, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory populations as threatened, rather than to list the koala as nationally threatened across its full range.”
Mr Burke said the Gillard Government had committed $300,000 of new funding under the National Environmental Research Program Emerging Priorities to find out more about koala habitat.
“This funding will be used to develop new survey methods that will improve our knowledge of the quality of koala habitat using remote sensing, and help fill important data gaps to enhance our understanding and ability to protect the species,” Mr Burke said.
“The new funding is in addition to more than $3 million we have invested since 2007 to ensure the resilience and sustainability of our koala population.”>>
[Source: ‘Koala protected under national environment law’, The Hon Tony Burke MP media release, Minister for Environment etc, 20120430, ^http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/burke/2012/mr20120430.html]
.
Koalas reduced to patchy populations Below the IUCN radar/crisis, Koala functional extinction looms
… patchy populations, and more patchy every year.
Do we wait until Koala numbers downgrade to ‘Critically Endangered‘ before the Australian Government gives a toss!
[Source: ^http://home.vicnet.net.au/~fofkk/]
.
.
Australian Government – too little, too late, too selective
.
<<But the Australian Government’s announcement (back in April 2012, now six months ago) only confirmed what the Lismore-based ‘Friends of the Koala‘ group has known for more than a decade. Friends of the Koala volunteer carer Lola Whitney said the listing was long overdue.
“The work that we do here tells us that koalas are in danger of becoming extinct,” she said. “So many koalas come through our care centre every year, that it’s amazing we’ve got any around here at all. And the amount we lose from being hurt or from diseases – we lose a lot.”>>
.
Ed: But the Australian Government has only partially listed Koalas as vulnerable to extinction in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Whereas Victorian and South Australian koalas were omitted.
.
This was because these were the recommendations of the 2011 Senate Enquiry, despite the TSSC confirmed 39% decline in the South Australian Koala population between 1990 and 2010.
.
Tony Burke as ultimate custodian: Why were problematic declining Koalas across South Australia and Victoria excluded from the EPBC Act?
.
It was also because the lead authority, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, had “information gaps”, and because “the body of data on the status of koala populations is patchy, often sparse and not nationally comprehensive or coordinated”, the TSSC ignored the ‘Precautionary Principle and repeatedly rejected the Koala’s threatened species listing on the EPBC Act.
.
What it failed to appreciate was the more appropriate IUCN Red List categories of ‘DATA DEFICIENT’ (DD) and ‘NOT EVALUATED’ (NE).
.
.
The Conclusion by the 2011 Senate Committee Enquiry was selective. It read as follows:
.
<<The most prominent issue raised during this inquiry was whether the koala should be listed as a threatened species. Although the committee does not have the technical expertise of the TSSC, and therefore believes it is not qualified to determine whether or not the koala should be listed as threatened, the committee is deeply concerned about the sustainability of Australia’s koala population.
On one hand, the committee is pleased that the koala may not yet be eligible for listing as threatened. The committee believes that to have such a significant Australian icon included on the threatened species list would be a national shame.
On the other hand, the committee believes there are parts of the koala population that require much greater protection. This is occurring to some extent in Queensland and NSW where the koala is listed in some areas under state environment protection legislation. However, state listing has not stemmed the marked decline in the population. If declines continue it will only be a matter of time before the koala is nationally listed as a threatened species.
The EPBC threatened species listing process is reactive and not well suited to the conservation needs of the koala. In the committee’s view, there ought to be processes available to enable proactive protection for the koala as well as other significant Australian species. In this regard the committee notes the possible mechanisms announced as part of the government’s response to the review of the EPBC Act which could enable a more proactive approach to koala conservation. Perhaps, building on the TSSC’s proposal to monitor species of cultural, evolutionary and/or economic significance, there ought to be a category of nationally significant species.
Ultimately, the committee would like to see Australia’s koala population return to plentiful numbers of healthy individuals, in resilient habitats, across the koala’s natural range.>>
[Conclusion, p. xix]
.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee repeatedly rejected Koala listing on EPBC Act
.
Three separate Listing Advices by the ‘ by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) to successive Australian Environment Ministers rejected the listing of the Koala as a threatened species on the EPBC Act, as follows:.
.
Feb 2006:
.
Due to the TSSC acknowledging that “there are still information gaps regarding the species’ conservation status“, the TSSC recommendation to Australia’s Environment Minister on Koala conservation was:
“The Committee recommends that the species Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala) is not eligible for inclusion in the list referred to in section 178 (Listing of Threatened Species) of the EPBC Act.”
[Source: ‘Advice to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) on Amendments to the list of Threatened Species
under the EPBC Act’, 20060206, Item 6, p.15, Threatened Species Scientific Committee,^http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/koala.pdf, >Read 2006 Listing Advice]
.
Sep 2010:
.
<<The body of data on the status of koala populations is patchy, often sparse and not nationally comprehensive or coordinated. The data quality is also variable. There has been only limited improvement in quality, relevance and integration of these data over the 15 years that the koala has been considered by this Committee and its predecessor. This situation is not unusual for the Committee but what is unusual is the huge area of occurrence and variability that the koala demonstrates. I addition there is a lack of any consistent reliable methodology for population monitoring of the koala.>>
.
<<In its deliberations, the Committee concluded that a Conservation Dependent listing for the koala could not be justified at this time.>>
<<The Committee recommends that the list referred to in section 178 of the EPBC Act not be amended at this time by including the Phascolarctos cinereus (koala) in the list in the Vulnerable category.>>
Nov 2011 (change of heart, but ignoring Victoria and South Australia):
.
<<12. Recommendations
(i) The Committee recommends that the Minister declare the combined koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) populations in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory to be a species for the purposes of the EPBC Act under s517 of the Act.
(ii) The Committee recommends that the list referred to in section 178 of the EPBC Act not be amended by including the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) over its national extent.
(iii) The Committee recommends that the list referred to in section 178 of the EPBC Act be amended by including in the list in the Vulnerable category the combined koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) populations in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory.
(iv) The Committee recommends that there should be a recovery plan for this species.>>
To his credit, Tony Burke had asked the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) for more precise boundaries detailing areas where koala populations are in trouble.
In February 2012, Australian Koala Foundation chief executive officer Deborah Tabart said that this Senate Committee Enquiry document was telling Mr Burke that he should act now and not wait another 10 weeks.
Deborah Tabart OAM
– not smiling
.
<<“Minister Burke has delayed this decision, I think, twice and Minister (Peter) Garrett prior to that, I think, three times. “I’m just hoping that the Senate inquiry document, which is now firmly on his (Mr Burke’s) desk, should persuade him that, if nothing else, he should protect the koala under a precautionary approach”, said Tabart.>>
<<The National Board of the Australian Koala Foundation (AKF), being much more aware of the Koala population range reality, undertook an extensive mapping project to quantify how many koalas remained in the wild, and where those koalas were located.
Extensive research was undertaken using National Vegetation Information System (NVIS) data, vegetation mapping, a bidling database of records for over 80,000 individually assessed trees from 2,000 field sites across the Koala’s range. Data has been collected by AKF from sixteen of the twenty-four Australian bioregions that the Koala is known to occur.>>
In 2011, the following map has been prepared estimating Australia’ national Koala population:
Estimated Australian Koala Population, 2011 >Read Large Map(pdf) (3.4MB – – NB. if slow to open, GoTo: File > Save As.., then open the PDF file from your auto-download folder)[Source: ‘Bob’s Map’, Australian Koala Foundation, ^https://www.savethekoala.com/our-work/koala-numbers]
.
2011 Senate Committee: ‘The koala—saving our national icon’
.
The 19 Recommendations of the Senate Committee
.
<<Recommendation 1
The Australian Government fund research into the genetic diversity of the koala including a population viability assessment of the southern koala and determining priority areas for conservation nationally.
.
Recommendation 2
The Australian Government fund a properly designed, funded and implemented national koala monitoring and evaluation program across the full range of the koala.
.
Recommendation 3
The Australian Government establish a nationally coordinated and integrated program for population monitoring of threatened species and other culturally, evolutionary and/or economically significant species.
.
Recommendation 4
The Australian Government assist the koala research community and interested organisations to work towards a standardised set of methodologies for estimating koala populations.
.
Recommendation 5
The Threatened Species Scientific Committee provide clearer information to the Environment Minister in all future threatened species listing advices, including species population information, and that the Threatened Species Scientific Committee review its advice to the Minister on the listing of the koala in light of the findings of this inquiry.
.
Recommendation 6
The Australian Government undertake habitat mapping across the koala’s national range, including the identification of priority areas of koala conservation, with a view to listing important habitat under the provisions of the EPBC Act.
.
Recommendation 7
The habitat maps be used to identify and protect important habitat in known koala ranges.
.
Recommendation 8
The Australian Government review its land holdings which contain koala habitat and consider biodiversity, and specifically koala populations, in the management and sale of Commonwealth land.
.
Recommendation 9
The Australian Government actively consider options for recognition and funding for private land holders for the conservation of koala habitat.
.
Recommendation 10
The Australian Government fund research into koala disease, including the viability of vaccination programs and the effect of changes in leaf chemistry.
.
Recommendation 11
The Australian Government fund the Koala Research Network’s request for a Research Liaison Officer.
.
Recommendation 12
The Australia Government consider further wild dog control options in priority koala areas.
.
Recommendation 13
Local and state governments:
Introduce appropriate speed limits in priority koala areas; and
Where appropriate, build or retrofit underpasses or overpasses for major roads in priority koala areas as well as installing koala fencing adjacent to major roads.
.
Recommendation 14
Where the Australian Government provides funding for roads or other infrastructure in or adjacent to koala habitat, it be contingent on the provision of adequate koala protections.
.
Recommendation 15
The Australian Government work with the states to develop new national guidelines to ensure that all new roads and upgrades in or adjacent to koala habitat are koala-friendly.
.
Recommendation 16
The (Australian Government’s) Environment Minister consider the evidence provided to this inquiry when making his final decision on listing the koala as a threatened species.
.
Recommendation 17
The (Australian Government’s) Environment Minister consider options to improve the conservation status of the diverse and rapidly declining koala populations in New South Wales and Queensland to ensure a nationally resilient population is maintained. These options include listing the koala as vulnerable under the EPBC Act in areas where populations have declined significantly or are at risk of doing so.
.
Recommendation 18
An independent external review be conducted on the National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy to monitor the adequacy of progress. The review should assess and report on the progress made at the strategy’s midpoint.
.
The review must include an assessment of the:
Strategy’s implementation to date and prospects into the future;
Strategy’s effectiveness in stabilising koala numbers in areas of declining population, and in reducing the pressure of overabundant populations;
Strategy’s level of ambition, including whether new elements are required; and
Adequacy of the Commonwealth’s and the states’ respective roles and funding commitments.
.
Recommendation 19
The Australian Government adequately resource the National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy, and ensure that it is properly implemented through committing to a much stronger leadership role.>>
.
.
.
Of note, ‘Recommendation 17‘ restricted the conservation status of the Koala only to ensure a ‘nationally resilient population is maintained’. That means that regional extinctions shall be acceptable, so long as a ‘nationally resilient population is maintained’ somewhere.
These are the places that the Koala is deemed to be declining and so given the vulnerable status. Other Koala populations elsewhere don’t weem to matter to the Australian Government.
Koala tokenly listed as ‘Vulnerable’ but politically only at the above ‘selected places’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999)
.
.
2000: Even then, the United States recognised Koalas as ‘Vulnerable’
.
<<Back on 9th May 2000, the United States Government listed all koalas in Australia as vulnerable under the Endangered Species Act. The US Government determined that a) the eucalyptus and woodland ecosystems on which the arboreal marsupial depends has been greatly reduced, b) that despite conservation action by the governments of Australia, koala habitat continues to deteriorate, and c) that irrespective of koala numbers, the threats were present and real.
At the time, the Australian Government was outraged. The Australian Koala Foundation considered that the US may have been pointing out to Australia (when President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore were in power) that Australia needed to control its land clearing in readiness for the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. One petitioner pointed out that Australia at that time was clearing land second only to the Amazon.
At the time, the Victorian Government was pleading that they ‘had so many koalas they are pests’, and a similar cry was heard in the 2011 Senate Committee Enquiry into the plight of the Koala.
Australian Greens Leader, Senator Bob Brown had in 2010 successfully moved for a new Senate Comittee Enquiry to assess the threats to and management of koalas across the country. The Inquiry into the status, health and sustainability of Australia’s koala population, has particular reference to:
the iconic status of the koala and the history of its management;
estimates of koala populations and the adequacy of current counting methods;
knowledge of koala habitat; d. threats to koala habitat such as logging, land clearing, poor management, attacks from feral and domestic animals, disease, roads and urban development;
the listing of the koala under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;
the adequacy of the National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy;
appropriate future regulation for the protection of koala habitat;
interaction of state and federal laws and regulations; and i. any other related matters.
.
Environment Minister Tony Burke appears to have been swayed by this plea as unlike his United States counterparts he did not consider the following in the American citation “…the actual number of koalas that were present at various times in the past and that may still exist is of much interest and helps to give some perspective but, as for many species, may not be the critical factor in determining whether the species is threatened. A low figure may reflect natural rarity of a population in marginal habitats. A high figure may be misleading if the entire habitat of the involved population faces imminent destruction”.
The document continues “…if we receive strong biological arguments, we would consider giving separate consideration to particular populations. It should be recognised, however, that koalas cannot be considered separate populations solely because they reside in different state jurisdictions”.
No such biological argument could be made. On the contrary, genetic studies in Victoria show that by and large all Victorian koalas, except those in the eastern part, are all pretty much genetically identical which means the future is bleak for conservation. Some of them even have testicles missing. On Kangaroo Island, some research suggests that as many as 29 per cent may have this affliction.
Imagine a koala that lives on the Murray River in New South Wales. On one side of the river, it has protection, but if it swims to Victoria, it does not. In AKF’s view, either the Australian Government values our national icon for its contribution to our nation or it does not.
As seen on Four Corners last night, the fur trade decimated the koala and the remnant populations are still low as a result of that slaughter.
Nowadays, the Koala pays its way in big tourism dollars, not the paltry one shilling (around 10 cents) per skin.
.
‘But the koala has powerful enemies. In the senate inquiry, developers, loggers, bureaucrats and even some departments of environment pleaded with the senators not to list the Koala because it would upset the developers or impede growth.’
.
The partial listing of the koala as vulnerable in NSW, ACT and Queensland can be seen as some sort of win, but will the existing legislation (the EPBC Act) be strong enough to protect the koala from long term destruction of its habitat?
Although the animal itself has been protected since 1936, its habitat really has not.
The Australian Koala Foundation believes its future lies in a koala-specific legislation similar to that of the American Bald Eagle Act, enacted in 1942. The Americans realised that if they did not do something strong and powerful they might lose their national icon forever. We believe that time has come now. The AKF estimates there may be as few a 43,000 koalas with no more than 85,000 left in its original habitat. If we are right, then there is no time to waste.
Greens Senator Bob Brown, as a final gesture before leaving Parliament, said he would support the AKF in our endeavours to enact a Koala Protection Bill. This should be a simple piece of legislation that basically says if you have koalas on your property that you cannot harm them, remove their trees and must – and that is the operative word – must ensure that your activity is benign for their long term future.
Four Corners has identified real threats to the koala and a partial listing will probably not make them go away. Neither will a specific piece of legislation, unless all our politicians actually realise we are at real risk of losing them.’>>
[Source: ‘Koalas deserve full protection‘, by Deborah Tabart, Chief Executive of the Australian Koala Foundation, 20120821, ABC, ^http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/08/21/3571830.htm ; https://www.savethekoala.com/about-us/news-events/senate-inquiry]
.Dead Koalas on a vet’s autopsy table – with all the Green Talk how has it come to this?
A native species that just sits up a tree, sleeps and hurts no-one
..now dying out because of Australian selfish viciousness.
Koalas are dying or being euthanised by the hundreds as a result of dog predation, road carnage, and Koala Habitat destruction.
[Source: ‘Koala Crunch Time’, ABC Four Corners (television programme), 20120821,
^http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/08/16/3569231.htm]
.
Watch ABC Four Corners Programme: ‘Koala Crunch Time‘
Australia’s Sprawl Profit overrules Biodiversity‘Since 1997, koala hospitals along Australia’s eastern seaboard have recorded 15,000 Koala deaths’
[Source: Koala Crunch Time’, ABC Four Corners,^http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/08/16/3569231.htm]
.
Westfield Shopping Centre development profiting out of Koala habitat apocalypseLow (economic) Cost Housing, Coomera, Queensland
.
.
IUCN wrongly continues to list Koalas as of ‘Least Concern’
.
Although Koala’s only exist naturally in Australia, at the international level the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) is still officially listed as of ‘Least Concern‘.
The most recent survey count of Koala status obtained by The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the lead global authority on the environment and sustainable development, was back in 2008. Why, when the rapid decline data has been out since 2010?
The IUCN then assessed the Koala as having a ‘wide distribution’ and ‘a presumed large population’. It ignored regional declines and only regarded the national aggregate as appropriate data. Worse is that it stated thay the Koala “requires intensive management in areas where it is considered a pest species“.
Ed: What ecological incompetence, and wildlife hate would assess wildlife as a pest species?
.
The IUCN recognised that the Koala population was in decline in certain areas and identifed the following threats to the species:
Continued habitat destruction, fragmentation, and modification (which makes them vulnerable to predation by dogs, vehicle strikes, and other factors)
Koala loss is symptomatic of Australia’s loss of much of the country’s native wildlife, its ecological communities and its biodiversity.
<<As of February 2011, a total of 1777 species are listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). A further 210 migratory and 464 marine species are also listed. The EPBC Act also lists 48 ecological communities as being threatened. These communities occur in a range of ecosystems including woodlands, forests, grasslands and wetlands.
Current threats to Australia’s biodiversity are:
Habitat loss
Degradation and fragmentation
Invasive species and diseases
Unsustainable use and management of natural resources
Marine and coastal pollution (including from land based sources and vessels)
Changes to the aquatic environment and water flows
Changing fire regimes (Ed: bushfire management incompetence, and widespread Government-bush arson)
<<Friends of the Koala president Lorraine Vass said conservationists had been waiting for many years for koalas to be listed as vulnerable.
“At least a vulnerable to extinction listing,” she said. “It’s an additional layer of legislative protection and it’s better to have it than not to have it. “Apart from anything else it will be a very, very strong signal to everyone that at long last the nation is taking some responsibility for our national icon.”
Ms Vass said statistics as well as anecdotal evidence showed koala numbers were rapidly declining, particularly in the Tweed (north eastern coastal New South Wales).
“I live at Wyrallah on a small property where koalas come and go, on the basis of observation at home I know that we’re seeing nowhere near as many koalas as we used to”, she said.
“In terms of statistics we’re actually bringing into care more koalas than we used to, but at the same time there are particular areas where we’re not bringing in as many koalas as we used to. So there are areas of local stress and the coastal area of Tweed is certainly one of those.”>>
[Source: ‘Greater protection for koalas‘, by journalist Samantha Turnbull, 20120430, ABC North Coast New South Wales, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ^http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2012/04/30/3491805.htm, accessed 20121102]
.
<<This poor Koala was attacked by a Rottweiler in a suburban yard. It was reported that the koala was trying to get away and the dog grabbed it by the hindquarters as it was shimmying up a tree.
Sadly, this is a common occurrence with Koala’s. If it is not the hindquarters that are grabbed is around the neck or shoulder area. Usual injuries from this kind of incident are multiple puncture and tear wounds, with massive internal canine crush injuries. This koala had about 60 odd puncture wounds on his rump and groin area with many deep lacerations. His musculature around the groin and thigh area was lacerated pretty badly.
He died from shock, blood loss and ultimately a perforation of the intestine. The staff at the hospital gave him large amounts of fluids, and he was on strong painkillers and antibiotics. His wounds were flushed and he was kept in a warmed environment, but he died anyway.>>
<<Not-for-profit conservation group, Friends of the Koala say 52 koalas were killed by vehicles on north coast roads last year.
The findings are part of the organisation’s annual report which documents the reasons behind the deaths of 222 north coast koalas. Association president Lorraine Vass says dog attacks and disease account for many koalas in their care. But she says hits from cars are the biggest concern.
“One disturbing trend is an increase in road strikes,” she said. “Unfortunately that is a number that just keeps on increasing and last year we had 52 reports of koalas hit by cars. “Most of them, I’m afraid, were mortalities.”
But Ms Vass says there’s a positive outlook for koalas despite the figures. “I think there’s a lot to be optimistic about in terms of what’s going on with koala protection this year we’ve seen Lismore, we’ve got Tweed and Byron, those councils all working on a koala plan of management,” she said. “We’ve seen the federal announcement of the koala being listed under federal law as I say there’s a lot to be optimistic about.”>>
[Source: ‘Koala road deaths on rise‘, by Elloise Farrow-Smith, ABC, 20121019, ^http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/10/19/3614061.htm]
.
Koalas face a bleak future
.
Ed: The International Union for Conservation of Nature‘s global framework God-like governance for wildlife threatened by humanity is all about prioritising wildlife species most at risk of extinction for most protection.
.
It proclaims that if a species is not about to become extinct in the next ten years, its is not as important for conservation as those species that are.
.
But this is an Armageddon last man standing rationalisation. It may be administratively convenient, but it is an economic utilitarian philosophy that denies the rights of native wildlife to exist freely without persecution.
.
Were such an IUCN rationalist framwork applied to humans, such that don’t worry about say Chinese or Indians catching a deadly pandemic because there are a billion of them, it would be labelled as Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism or as Nazi Eugenics and quite rightly so. At The Habitat Advocate we espouse a worldview of Nature through: ^Deonteological Ethics and>Species Justice.
.
Every wildlife individual is valuable and has existence rights no different to humans.
.
Test: Would a human mother sacrifice her eldest or her youngest?
.
[Ed: All references sourced for this article 20111102]
>Read Map (PDF, 300kb – NB. if slow to open, GoTo: File > Save As.., then open the PDF file from your auto-download folder)
.
[4] ‘Koala now threatened species‘, 20120215, Radio National Breakfast (radio programme), Australian Broadcasting Corporation,’There’s quiet optimism among koala experts that our national icon will finally be classified as a threatened or endangered species’.^http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/2012-02-15/3830832
>Play .mp3 audio:
℗ 2012 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
.
[5] ‘Iconic animals – the koala‘, by Margot Foster, 20111228, ABC Rural (radio programme), Australian Broadcasting Corporation,
Abstract: ‘Michael Cathcart looks at the current efforts to protect this vulnerable animal. A senate committee has been looking into ‘the status, health and sustainability of Australia’s koala population’. He discovers the koala’s role as a cultural icon and the impact on our awareness of the koala, made by Norman Lindsay, as well as Dreamtime representations of the koala which reveal a great deal about the unique physiology and habits of this elusive animal.
The history of extensive slaughter of the koala since white settlement, because of the quality of its fur and value abroad, is an irony today because on Raymond Island, East Gippsland, koalas are making too many babies. There are about three hundred koalas on the small island and Department of Sustainability and Environment wildlife manager Charlie Franken says that’s about 250 too many.
Michael Cathcart speaks with Deborah Tabart OAM, CEO of the Australian Koala Foundation; Ann Moyal, author Of “Koala: A Historical Biography”; Michael J Connolly, Munda-gutta Kulliwari, Dreamtime Kullilla-Art; Helen Glad, Norman Lindsay’s grand daughter; Ann Moyal, author and historian; Charlie Franken, wildlife manager, Department of Sustainability and Environment; Dr Jay Patterson, Melbourne zoo vet and Dr Grant Kuseff, Bairnsdale veterinary surgeon;
>Play .mp3 audio (large data file so may take a minute):
℗ 2011 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
.
[6] ‘Interim koala referral advice for proponents‘, June 2012, Department of Environment (etc.), Australian Government,
Abstract: ‘Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) populations in Queensland (QLD), New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) have been listed as vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This listing came into legal effect on 2 May 2012. The listed threatened QLD, NSW and ACT populations are hereafter referred to in these guidelines as the koala.’
As is pointed out in the article, the “Koala loss is symptomatic of Australia’s loss of much of the country’s native wildlife, its ecological community and its biodiversity”.
Tragically, in spite of this environmental crisis, we continue to camouflage our destructiveness of the environment with such ineffective solutions as relocation of species, offsetting habitat loss with existing habitat, making roads safe, triple bottom line and balance as an excuse for permitting environmental destruction for individual developments and never taking their cumulative effects of into consideration
Australian Government – too little, too late, too selective
Since the excellent ABC 4 Corners in 2012 how many more koalas have lost their habitat and been destroyed taking our extinction debt to new heights?
In April 2015, as we wait with bated breath for Liberal governments to take environmental protection to new lows by handing federal powers over to economically aggressive states and in NSW to repeal the Native Vegetation Act, the koala represents how helpless other than human species are in the face of worship of the Economy over the Environment. Do governments reflect the people who elect them? If the koala is anything to go by the answer must be the people need a new school curriculum to show them how vulnerable they really are to the interconnected web of life.
If the way the koala is being decimated is how the public understands the human predicament, then something is truly wrong with the education system which needs to teach humans that we are in the end simply entirely dependent on the same things the tiny koala is – a safe and connected habitat.
If we don’t understand this fundamental need for our own survival, then we are on track to destroy ourselves and our own habitat – the planet. The koala is an exemplar of the global problem of biodiversity depletion.
Thank you for this page and the Habitat Advocate website and please give us a tweet option.
Another organised event stomping through Blue Mountains Bushcare
[Photo taken 20120915, published with permission]
.
In January 2005, the Blue Mountains Council set up a Blue Mountains East Timor Friendship Committee and a friendship relationship with Timor Leste (East Timor) to work with a community in Timor Leste.
The Blue Mountains Council has partnered with Hato Builico, one of the four Sub-Districts of Ainaro District, south west of the East Timorese capital Dili. The Council developed its ‘Hato Builico Strategic Plan 2008′ to improve the lives of this rural community through funding of a Community Centre Refurbishment, Sustainable Economic Development, Health and Well Being, Capacity Development, Education and Training, Capital Works Infrastructure; and Governance and Partnerships.’
This committee has since decided to stage a fundraising event to raise money for East Timorese communities. The event is called ‘Trek for Timor‘, which seems now scheduled to be held every two years in September. The route traverses bushland between Wentworth Falls and Katoomba in the Blue Mountains, about 100km west of Sydney. It passes through the Jamison Valley Wilderness within the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area . There are four separate distances – 5km, 13km, 25km and 45km options to cater for varying levels of fitness of participants.
.
The Trek Route
.
Section 1 – Charles Darwin Walk through Valley of the Waters to Leura Cascades (13km trek 7am – 4pm)
Section 2 – Leura Cascades to Katoomba Park & Oval (25km trek 6am – 6pm)
Section 3 – Katoomba Oval alkong Narrowneck and through the Jamison Valley to Jamison Creek – “an unsupported checkpoint”
Section 4 – Jamison Creek via Kedumba Pass to Queen Victoria Hospital (45km Trek 6am – 1am)
The registration fee is $30 per person to cover costs and in addition each trekker (in teams of four to six) is asked to raise at least $150 in sponsorship for East Timor.
While a few tourist toilets are situated on parts of the course, participants may relieve themselves between checkpoints “make sure you move well off the track, and carry a trowel to dig a small hole to bury your waste.”
Trek for Timor particpant in September 2012
[Photo taken 20120915, published with permission]
.
While the cause seems noble, a key Blue Mountains problem of this event, like the many running that seemed to have cropped up in recent years, is that the Blue Mountains Council has routed the ‘Trek’ through Bushcare restoration sites and through creek beds, and there has been no environment impact assessment or community consultation in allowing for the event.
So while the cause may be noble, the means appears to be ignoble.
.
A Bushcare Volunteer’s Concerns about Environmental Damage
.
The following correspondence last month is between a concerned Blue Mountains Bushcare volunteer and Trek for Timor. Names have been omitted out of respect for privacy.
.
9th Sep (Bushcare Volunteer):
.
Dear Trek For Timor,
“As a local resident, environmentalist and Bushcare participant/bushland restorer, I am very concerned that the ‘Trek for Timor’ event will be passing through an environmentally sensitive area. Of great concern is the proposed creek crossing from Peckmans Road to the lower Katoomba Sports Oval. This area is (and has been for many years) a focus of environmental restoration.
I respectfully consider that three hundred and fifty ‘Trek for Timor’ participants crossing here would severely degrade the creek and its surrounds. Other crossings are also degrading the creek further downstream.
I consider the event can still take place but request that it by-pass the area of concern. I suggest it instead take a route that enters the adjacent top sports oval from Cliff Dr.
I look forward to your reply and understanding.”
Regards,
(Bushcare Volunteer)
.
9th Sep (Trek for Timor):
.
“Good Morning (Bushcare Volunteer),
I have been forwarded your email regarding your concerns raised about Trek for Timor route passing through the section near the lower Katoomba Falls Oval. I am the volunteer in charge of the route for this event and and thank you for letting us know your concerns.
You will of course be aware that any event held in the Blue Mountains area is subject to strict guidelines and requirements from Council.
Unfortunately the event is now only a few days away and it would be very difficult to change the route at such a late stage. There were also additional reasons due to traffic concerns and safety as to why the route was put around through the back of the reserve. Additionally, there are only 150 walkers who are registered to walk through this area, as the other walkers will be either stopping at the 5km or 13km checkpoints.
I would, however, be very interested to meet with you on site sometime this week to see if there is some signage we can use to draw the participants attention to care being taken in that area. Also, although we may be constrained in being able to change the route for this Saturday’s event, the event may be held again in 2014 and we would like to know your concerns so we can ensure that we avoid any environmentally sensitive areas, and have the time to plan any such re-route for that year.
Please let me know if we can meet at the reserve sometime this week (lunch times or prior to 9am would suit me best).
Thanks,
(Trek for Timor)”
.
10th Sep (Bushcare Volunteer):
.
Hello (Trek for Timor),
“Thanks for your reply of 10 Sept 2012 below to my email of 9 Sept 2012 further below.
I respond as follows:
1. Thank you for your offer but signage will not prevent degradation. I consider that 150 participants will degrade the sensitive creek where proposed to be crossed. The only way to prevent the degradation is to by-pass the area as suggested at point 3 below.
2. The Council has neither informed the local community nor environmental groups of the proposed event. Consequently, there has been no local input.
3. I consider the traffic and safety concerns can be readily addressed given the traffic and safety issues along Oak St should already exist. I note that instead of turning left into Peckmans Rd, the route could easily continue for approximately 200 metres along Oak St. without any further road crossings before entering the top sports oval. The participants could then walk around the perimeter of the top and lower sports ovals to maintain the required distances of the event.
4. Given the small variation, I believe the route can be changed within five days before the event commences this Saturday.
5. Respectfully, the event could be seen as environmentally unsustainable should it proceed as currently planned.
I look forward to your reply and trust the event will now be re-routed.”
Regards,
(Bushcare Volunteer)
.
Trek For Timor route over creek restoration site, Katoomba
[Photo taken 20120915, published with permission]
.
11th Sep (Trek for Timor):
.
Dear (Bushcare Volunteer)
“Our committee has given full consideration to your suggestion and has sought Council’s advice on your request to reroute the trek. Both Council and the Trek for Timor organisers have safety concerns regarding your suggested alternative route, especially the very busy intersection of Kamilaroi Rd, Katoomba Falls Rd & Cliff Drive.
As we are sure you will agree, the safety of the trekkers is paramount.
The Environment Sustainability Officer of Council has also advised us that he considers the trek will have little or no impact on the crossing we will be using.
Having considered your request, taking advice from Council and following our committee discussions we have decided to continue with the course as planned. Our offer of signage advising the trekkers to take care when crossing the creek still stands.
Thank you for raising your concerns with us. Please direct all future correspondence to BMCC’s Environmental Sustainability Section.”
Regards,
T4TBM Organising Committee
(Trek for Timor)
.
14 Sep (Bushcare Volunteer):
.
Dear (Trek for Timor),
Thank you for your reply of 11 September 2012 below to my email of 10 September 2012 further below.
I respond as follows:
1. I think it is inappropriate for me to only direct my concerns to Blue Mountains City Council especially when the “Trek for Timor Blue Mountains Organising Committee” has organised the event. I also consider it necessary for me to respond to your replies of 10 and 11 September 2012 to dispel some misconceptions.
2. I wish to remind you that there has been no local input given Blue Mountains City Council has neither informed the local community nor environmental groups of the proposed event. Please provide me with the name of the Council’s “Environment Sustainability Officer” whom you contacted and their correct title, as I am only aware of the manager and administration and education officers carrying this title.
3. Once again, thank you for your offer but signage “advising the trekkers to take care when crossing the creek” will not prevent its degradation. The only way to prevent the degradation is to by-pass the area as suggested at point 6 below and point 3 in my email of 10 September 2012 further below.
4. I consider that environmental qualifications are not needed to understand that 150 “trekkers” crossing a muddy creek will damage it and the riparian vegetation. As such, I consider that any alternative unfounded view could be seen as deceptive and misleading.
5. You state that “Both Council and the Trek for Timor organisers have safety concerns regarding your suggested alternative route, especially the very busy intersection of Kamilaroi Rd, Katoomba Falls Rd & Cliff Drive.” Yet your replies of 10 and 11 September 2012 neither alerted me that the route would be crossing Katoomba Falls Rd during the very busy weekend traffic from the Katoomba Sports Oval towards the Katoomba Falls Kiosk for the 25 km and 45 km events, as is indicated on your web site. I also note that the detour I suggested on 10 September 2012 and at point 6 below passes through this location without any extra road crossings and so does not create any additional safety concerns and thus required additional resources that should already be addressed. Accordingly, I consider that it would be fair for me to say (and anyone reading this email) that all replies (and alleged replies) received by me from those involved in the “Trek for Timor” event to date are unfounded, perhaps misleading and deceptive.
6. I consider that there is ample time to change the route so that the participants can enter Katoomba Sports Oval off Cliff Drive. Traffic marshals and signs could be easily moved from Peckmans Rd to Kamillaroi Rd and Cliff Dr, as well as informing participants of the detour at the start of the event. Unlike the planned route, I note the detour does not require the participants to cross Katoomba Falls Rd.
7. Should the event continue to cross the creek adjacent to Peckmans Rd as planned and any other creeks in this area, it appears to me that the “Trek for Timor Blue Mountains Organising Committee” does not wish to acknowledge and address the concerns of local residents and environmentalists who have cared many years for this sensitive area.
I look forward to your reply and trust the ‘Trek for Timor Blue Mountains Organising Committee’ will reconsider re-routing the event.”
Regards,
(Bushcare Volunteer)
.
23 Sep (Bushcare Volunteer):
.
Dear ‘Trek for Timor Blue Mountains Organising Committee’,
Further to my email of 14 September 2012, I note the following:
1. The ‘Trek for Timor Blue Mountains Organising Committee’ did not reply to my email of 14 September 2012 below.
2. The ‘Trek for Timor’ event was not re-routed but instead went ahead on 15 September 2012 and crossed the creek adjacent to Peckmans Road despite ongoing prior concerns, requests, a suggested feasible alternative route and opportunities not to do so.
3. A ‘Trek for Timor’ notice erected next to the entrance of upper Katoomba Falls Sports Oval acknowledged that “there will be a high volume of walkers” participating in the “Trek for Timor” event.
4. Despite the ‘Trek for Timor’ event being advertised as a “walking” event, a number of participants were instead seen running the event, including at the creek crossing. These participants were also strongly encouraged to do so by ‘Trek for Timor’ marshals.
5. As indicated on the ‘Trek for Timor’ web site, the ‘Trek for Timor Blue Mountains Organising Committee’ (together with Blue Mountains City Council) was prepared to re-route participants up Cliff Drive and onto Birdwood Avenue in the event that Prince Henry Cliff Walk was closed during the event yet did not want to re-route the event along a safer stretch of road to prevent a creek crossing. I note locals consider Cliff Drive and Birdwood Avenue to be very dangerous roads for pedestrian use due to the number of sharp bends, the steep slope, the lack of safe pedestrian access and the speed and size of vehicles that utilise these roads.
Consequently, I consider the ‘Trek for Timor’ event has caused environmental damage to the creek adjacent to Peckmans Road and its riparian vegetation. In addition, I consider that the ‘Trek for Timor Blue Mountains Organising Committee’ disregards local community concerns including the community’s efforts in protecting and restoring environmentally sensitive areas for more than twenty years.
I trust future “Trek for Timor” events will no longer take place in Upper Kedumba River Valley.
Yours faithfully,
(Bushcare Volunteer)
.
Eroded creek crossing along Trek For Timor route
[Photo taken 20120915, published with permission]
.
.
Editorial Comments:
.
[1] There appears to have been no community consultation process facilitated by either the Blue Mountains Council or Trek for Timor – genuine, fair, transparent or otherwise. Local interested stakeholders such as local Bushcare Groups appeared to have not been consulted in respect to the event itself and the route chosen. Bushcare Volunteer: “there has been no local input given Blue Mountains City Council has neither informed the local community nor environmental groups of the proposed event.“
.
[2] No environmental assessment appears to have been conducted by the Blue Mountain Council or by the local New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. Trek For Timor’s claim of there being “strict guidelines and requirements from Council” are not publicly available. What are the “strict guidelines and requirements from Council”, if any?
.
[3] The decision by Blue Mountains Council to allow the course route to traverse a sensitive creek watercourse that is under remediation as a Bushcare site is contrary to the ecological restoration and native habitat conservation objectives of Bushcare. The creek site is within 200 metres upstream of Katoomba Falls and the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. There appear to be no control limits on the numbers of participants and their support crews.
.
[4] The cumulative impacts of tramping and soiling by the Trek for Timor and other similar running events upon the local natural environment appear to have not been environmentally assessed. Any such assessment outcomes by Council’s Environment Sustainability Officer is not readily available on either the Blue Mountains Council website or on the Trek for Timor website.
Similar running events through the natural bushland of the Blue Mountains that have been approved by Blue Mountains Council in recent years are:
‘Running Wild is keen to provide NSW runners with opportunities to regularly run on trails and where better than in the Blue Mountains National Park. The park covers a huge area and is already known for great races such as the Woodford to Glenbrook, the Six Foot Track and The North Face 100, but there are many other excellent trails out there, just waiting to be run. Our vision is to bring new and exciting trail races to all runners, which is also good for us, as it gives the committee a really good excuse to get out on the trails and run more, to find even better trails to share.”
Northface 100 competitors head off on a similar route through the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area
.
[5] The current trend of adventure recreation and adventure tourism have not been adequately assessed by the government custodians of the environmentally sensitive and ecologically important vegetation communities in which these activities have been allowed. Adventure Tourism is an ongoing threat to the integrity and health of native habitat.
.
Blue Mountains National Park sign at Katoomba along the route
The custodians of the National Park have abandoned their core conservation values for tourism
[Photo by Editor 20120706, licenced under ^Creative Commons]
Snow Petrel (Pagodroma nivea) over Antarctic Ice
(Photo by John Weller)
.
‘An alliance of 30 global environment organisations today launched a report calling for greater protection for the East Antarctic marine environment, on the eve of an international meeting where the future conservation of this region will be decided.
The Antarctic Ocean Alliance (AOA) report “Antarctic Ocean Legacy: Protection for the East Antarctic Coastal Region”, supports a proposal from Australia, France and the EU for East Antarctic marine protection but also calls for additional important areas to be included such as the Prydz Gyre, the Cosmonaut Polynya, and the East India seamounts.
In just four days, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), will begin meetings in Hobart, Tasmania to debate several proposals for marine protection, including the East Antarctic coastal region and the Ross Sea. The Ross Sea was the subject of an AOA report in February this year.
“The AOA is calling on CCAMLR Members to support the current East Antarctic coastal region proposal put forward by Australia, France and the EU, but to also consider additional areas in subsequent years that our report shows are critical to ensuring the wildlife in the region gets the protection it needs,” said AOA Director Steve Campbell.
“We are calling on CCAMLR Members to support the establishment of the world’s largest network of marine reserves and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Southern Ocean as a legacy for future generations,” Mr. Campbell said. “Decisive protection for the East Antarctic coastal region and Ross Sea would be a great start to that process.”
The remote East Antarctic coastal region is home to a significant number of the Southern Ocean’s penguins, seals and whales. It also contains rare and unusual seafloor and oceanographic features, which support high biodiversity.
Adelie Penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) in Antarctica
(Photo by John Weller)
.
“While the AOA supports the conservation gains included in the proposal from Australia, France and the EU, we hope that CCAMLR delegates will consider expanding on the area to be protected to include additional areas that are critical habitats for Adélie penguins, Antarctic toothfish, minke whales and Antarctic krill in the future,” said Mr. Campbell.
Antarctic marine ecosystems are under increasing pressure. Growing demand for seafood means greater interest in the Southern Ocean’s resources, while climate change is affecting the abundance of important food sources for penguins, whales, seals and birds.
In October 2011, the Antarctic Ocean Alliance proposed the creation of a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) and marine reserves in 19 specific areas in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica.
This report, ‘Antarctic Ocean Legacy: Protection for the East Antarctic Coastal Region‘, outlines a vision for marine protection in the East Antarctic, one of the key regions previously identified by the AOA.
Currently, only approximately 1% of the world’s oceans are protected from human interference, yet international agreements on marine protection suggest that this number should be far higher.
The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the body that manages the marine living resources of the Southern Ocean (with the exception of whales and seals), has set a target date of 2012 for establishing the initial areas in a network of Antarctic MPAs.
One of the key places for which the AOA seeks protection is the East Antarctic coastal region. This remote area, while vastly understudied, is home to a significant proportion of the Southern Ocean’s penguins, seals and whales. The East Antarctic coastal region also contains large seafloor and oceanographic features found nowhere else on the planet. The AOA offers this report to assist in designating marine reserves and MPAs in the East Antarctic coastal region. This is the third in a series of “Antarctic Ocean Legacy” proposals from the AOA.
This report describes the geography, oceanography and ecology of this area. The AOA acknowledges the scientists and governments that have studied the region and welcomes and gives support to the proposal that has been submitted for marine protection in the East Antarctic by Australia, France and the EU, but is cautious that constant vigilance and additional marine reserves will be required to ensure that the conservation values of the proposal are not compromised in the future.
Killer Whales breaching in Antarctic waters
(Photo by John Weller)
.
The AOA proposes that in addition to the seven areas referenced by Australia, France and the EU, four additional areas also be considered for protection in the coming years. A network MPAs and marine reserves encompassing these additional areas and those proposed by Australia, France and the EU would span approximately 2,550,000 square kilometres.
Because the East Antarctic coastal region is “data‐poor”, the AOA plan is based on the application of the precautionary approach, one of the core concepts at the centre of CCAMLR’s mandate.
This proposal includes:
A representative sample of biological features at the species, habitat and ecosystem scale to ensure broad scale protection.
Areas of protection large enough to encompass broad foraging areas for whales, seals, penguins and other seabirds.
Protection of many of the region’s polynyas, which are sources of food for many species.
Protection of unique geomorphic features, including the Gunnerus Ridge, Bruce Rise, a trough mouth fan off Prydz Bay, various seamounts and representative areas of shelf, slope and abyssal ecoregions.
Full protection of Prydz Bay, an area that supports large numbers of seabirds and mammals as well as likely nursery grounds for krill and toothfish.
Protecting areas of scientific importance that may serve as climate reference areas.
.
Weddell seal (Leptonychotes weddellii) in Antarctic waters
(Photo by John Weller)
.
Currently only 1% of the world’s oceans are protected from human interference, yet international agreements on marine protection suggest that this number should be far higher.
The designation of a network of large‐scale MPAs and marine reserves in the East Antarctic coastal region would be an important and inspirational step for marine protection in the Southern Ocean. CCAMLR Members have an unprecedented opportunity to establish a network of marine reserves and MPAs an order of magnitude greater than anything accomplished before. With such a network in place, key Southern Ocean habitats and wildlife, including those unique to the East Antarctic coastal region, would be protected from the impacts of human activities.
The AOA submits that with visionary political leadership, CCAMLR can grasp this opportunity and take meaningful steps to protect critical elements of the world’s oceans that are essential for the lasting health of the planet.
.
Notes:
.
The AOA’s research has identified over 40% of the Southern Ocean that warrants protection in a network of large-scale marine reserves and MPAs, based on the combination of existing marine protected areas, areas identified within previous conservation and planning analyses and including additional key environmental habitats described in the AOA’s report.
The AOA is campaigning for CCAMLR to adopt its ‘Vision for Circumpolar Protection’ while this unique marine environment is still largely intact. CCAMLR has agreed to create a network of marine protected areas in some of the ocean around Antarctica this year but the size and scale is still under debate.
CCAMLR is a consensus body that meets with limited public participation and does not provide media access. The AOA believes that, without public attention during the process, only minimal protection will be achieved. It has launched the ‘Join the Watch’ campaign focused on CCAMLR, which now has more than 100,000 participants from around the world.
Antarctic waters make up almost 10% of the world’s seas and are some of the most intact environments left on earth. They are home to almost 10,000 unique and diverse species such as penguins, seals and whales.’
Antarctic Toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) the Ross Sea, Antarctica
[Source: The Last Ocean, photo by Rob Robbins, ^http://lastocean.wordpress.com/]
.
‘Antarctic Toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) are by far the dominant fish predator in the Ross Sea. Whereas most Antarctic fish species rarely get larger than 60 cm, Ross Sea toothfish can grow in excess of two metres in length and more than 150 kg in mass.
Being top predators, they feed on a variety of fish and squid, but they are also important prey for Weddell seals, sperm whales, colossal squid, and a specific type of killer whale that feeds almost exclusively on toothfish.
While these fish have long been studied for their ability to produce anti-freeze proteins that keep their blood from crystallizing, very little is known about their life cycle and distribution. We do know they live to almost 50 years of age and grow relatively slowly. They likely mature between 13 and 17 years of age (120-133 cm in length).
In the Ross Sea, toothfish are caught throughout the water column from about 300 metres to more than 2,200 metres deep. While most fish control their buoyancy with a swim bladder, toothfish actually use lipids or fats (lending to their popularity as a food fish).
Recent research suggests that toothfish have a complex life cycle which includes a remarkable spawning migration. In the Ross Sea region, adults feed over the continental shelf and slope, and then migrate from the Ross Sea continental shelf to northern seamounts, banks and ridges around the Pacific-Antarctic Ridge system. Here in the northern offshore waters, fish release their eggs, which are then picked up by the Ross Gyre and brought back to the shelf. This hypothesis is likely, but not yet proven because Antarctic toothfish eggs or larvae have never been found. Small juveniles have been found in other regions, but never in the Ross Sea, lending even more mystery to the life cycle of this fish.’
The Ross Sea ecosystem is the last intact marine ecosystem left on Earth. Unlike many other areas of the world’s oceans, the Ross Sea’s top predators are still abundant. Here they drive the system, shaping the food web below in a way that’s totally unique.
While comprising just two percent of the Southern Ocean, the Ross Sea is the most productive stretch of Antarctic waters. It has the richest diversity of Southern Ocean fishes, an incredible array of benthic invertebrates and massive populations of mammals and seabirds.
More than a third of all Adélie penguins make their home here, as well as almost a third of the world’s Antarctic petrels and Emperor penguins. Also found here are Antarctic Minke whales, Weddell and Leopard seals, and Orcas, including a population specially adapted to feed on Antarctic toothfish, the top fish predator of the Ross Sea.
The Ross Sea’s rich biodiversity and productivity puts it on a par with many World Heritage sites, like the Galapagos Islands, African Rift lakes and Russia’s Lake Baikal.’
Jan 2012: Dodgy Korean-flagged rust bucket fishing vessel ‘Jeong Woo 2’ burns while fishing in Antarctica’s Ross Sea – a long way from Korea
Australian records show the Jung Woo 2 is owned by the Sunwoo Corporation and is licensed
to fish for Chilean sea bass, crab and other bottom-dwelling fish.
The old ship was built in Japan in 1985 and is registered in Busan, South Korea.
[Source: ^http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/11/three-fishermen-killed-blaze-antarctica]
.
[5] Mar 2012: ‘US retailer says no to ‘Ross Sea’ seafood’
.
‘A third US retailer has announced it will not stock seafood from Antartica’s Ross Sea for environmental reasons, reports Greenpeace.
Harris Teeter joins US supermarket chains Safeway and Wegmans by taking the ‘Ross Sea Pledge’ which means it will not buy or sell seafood from that area. It is also calling for the entire Ross Sea to be protected.
“We have pledged not to buy or sell any seafood harvested from the Ross Sea,” the company states on its website. “By taking the “Ross Sea Pledge,” we encourage the nations who are members of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources to designate the entire Ross Sea as an MPA [Marine Protected Area],” it continues.
The Ross Sea has been identified as the least human affected large oceanic ecosystem remaining on Earth. Many Scientists are advocating for it to be designated as a fully protected marine reserve. However, a longline fishery for Antarctic toothfish, started by New Zealand vessels in the late 1990s, is operating in the Ross Sea and supplying the luxury market.
“The delicate balance of the fragile Ross Sea is under threat from commercial fishing,” says Greenpeace New Zealand Oceans Campaigner Karli Thomas.
“Although technology has made it possible, it is simply not sustainable to be fishing every last corner of our ocean. The Ross Sea is a special place that we should be protecting as the home to diverse and unique wildlife, and a refuge in the face of climate change – not exploiting to feed the wealthy.”
In 2010, Greenpeace published a report outlining the role that seafood traders, retailers and chefs can play in protecting the Ross Sea. “The announcement by Harris Teeter shows there is a growing awareness by retailers that the Ross Sea should be protected as no-go area,” says Thomas.
The recently formed Antarctic Ocean Alliance, a group of environmental organisations, last week launched a report calling for a large-scale marine reserve to be established in the Ross Sea.’
Illustration of a bottom gill net
(Michigan Sea Grant)
.
Significant progress has been made in reducing the level of IUU catch through the cooperation of CCAMLR, its Member nations and legal fishers. However, a number of IUU fishers still operate primarily in the South Indian Ocean and directly off the East Antarctic coastal region.
The conservative catch limits remain in place today, as IUU fishing remains a problem and is unlikely to further decline. In recent years, IUU fishers have increasingly used deepwater gillnets in the area, making IUU estimates nearly impossible to calculate.
Gillnets are banned by CCAMLR because they pose a significant environmental threat due to their high levels of bycatch and the risk of “ghost fishing,” which refers to nets that have been cut loose or lost in the ocean and continue catching marine life for years.
The amount of toothfish caught in IUU gillnets remains unknown, but is likely substantial. For example, gillnets found by Australian officials in 2009 spanned 130 km and had ensnared 29 tonnes of Antarctic toothfish.
IUU fishing and the uncertainty associated with toothfish populations severely compromise fisheries management and has led to the rapid decline of some toothfish stocks.
Moreover, like many deep dwelling fish, toothfish live a long time, grow slowly as adults and mature late in life, all characteristics that make them vulnerable to overfishing.
Local depletions of toothfish may easily occur, as has happened over BANZARE Bank. Scientists have yet to understand the Antarctic toothfish’s life history in the East Antarctic, which further compromises management.’
.
[Source: Antarctic Ocean Alliance (AOA) report “Antarctic Ocean Legacy: Protection for the East Antarctic Coastal Region”, page 19]
.
[8] Illegal Unreported Unregulated (IUU) Fishing’
.
‘Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is fishing which does not comply with national, regional or global fisheries conservation and management obligations.IUU fishing can occur within zones of national jurisdiction, within areas of control of regional fisheries bodies, or on the high seas. With the increasing demand for fishery products and the decline of fishery resources, the increasing incidence of IUU fishing has been of great concern to responsible fishing nations.
In a 1999 report to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, the UN Secretary General stated that IUU fishing was “one of the most severe problems currently affecting world fisheries.”
By hindering attempts to regulate an otherwise legitimate industry, IUU fishing puts at risk millions of dollars of investment and thousands of jobs as valuable fish resources are wantonly depleted below sustainable levels. Disregard for the environment by way of high seabird mortality and abandonment of fishing gear gives rise to even more concern, as does the general disregard for crew safety on IUU boats.
IUU fishing on the high seas is a highly organised, mobile and elusive activity undermining the efforts of responsible countries to sustainably manage their fish resources. International cooperation is vital to effectively combat this serious problem. By using regional fisheries management organisations as a vehicle for cooperation, fishing states, both flag and port states, and all major market states, should be able to coordinate actions to effectively deal with IUU fishing activity.
At the initiative of the United Nations FAO Committee on Fisheries, States developed the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. It is the first global legally-binding instrument that aims to reduce the occurrence of IUU fishing. Australia signed the Agreement on 27 April 2010 and intends to take binding treaty action to ratify these amendments.
IUU fishing is jeopardising the Australian harvest of fish stocks both within and beyond the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ), and the long-term survival of fishing industries and communities. The recent incidence of illegal fishing of Patagonian toothfish in Australia’s remote Southern Ocean territories is a prime example of the damaging effects of unregulated fishing on the sustainability of stocks and the viability of the Australian industry.
Australia’s remote sub-Antarctic territories of Heard and the McDonald Islands lie in the southern Indian Ocean about 4,000 km south-west of Perth. Since 1997, six vessels have been apprehended by Australian authorities for illegal fishing in the AFZ around Heard Island and the McDonald Islands in the sub-Antarctic.
Illegal fishing also occurs in Australia’s northern waters and is largely undertaken by traditional or small-scale Indonesian vessels.
Since 1974, traditional Indonesian vessels have been allowed access to a defined area of the Australian fishing zone (north west of Broome) in which Australia agrees not to enforce its fisheries laws – an area known as the MoU Box. IUU fishing by Indonesian vessels has occurred both in the MoU Box (through a failure to comply with agreed rules) and as a result of opportunistic fishing in other areas of the AFZ around the MoU Box.
In more recent times, there has been a noticeable shift away from what could be termed ‘traditional’ fishing. Vessels are being found further east, as far across as the Torres Strait, and are largely targeting shark for its valuable fin.’
‘The Last Ocean was started in 2004 to promote the establishment of a marine protected area (MPA) in order to conserve the pristine qualities of the Ross Sea, Antarctica.
In August 2009, the Last Ocean Charitable Trust was created as an extension of this project, specifically to raise awareness of the Ross Sea within New Zealand. The Trust is based in Christchurch, New Zealand’s gateway to Antarctica.’ Visit website: ^http://www.lastocean.org/
This is very important case showing that our incremental environmental destruction is now threatening the last marine ecosystem left on earth. I hope that the report by the alliance of 30 global environmental organizations will succeed to convince the CCAMLR Members to protect the Ross Sea ecosystem. For if their report and the fact that the Ross Sea ecosystem is the last intact marine ecosystem fails to wake us up to consequences of our progressive destruction of the earth’s biosphere then there is no hope of stopping this our self-destruction.
Tasman Flax-lily(Dianella tasmanica) (blue berry) in a Blue Mountains Swamp
At the headwaters of Katoomba Creek, Katoomba
Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge
.
Q: When is a protected swamp not deemed a swamp and so not worthy of protection?
Closed sedgeland dominated by Soft Twig Rush (Baumea rubiginosa)across a Blue Mountains Swampalong the headwaters of Yosemite Creek, Katoomba
Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge
.
A: When unqualified local Council development planning staff are selectively blind to allow for housing development.
Colorbond fence encroaching into the above Blue Mountains SwampAlong the headwaters of Yosemite Creek, Katoomba
Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge
.
Q: When is a protected swamp deemed a swamp worthy of protection?
A:When quasi-qualified local Council environmental staff are selectively seeking public relations kudos and grant funding.
The Save Our Swamps (SOS) Project
.
The Save Our Swamps (SOS) Project is a recent joint project between Blue Mountains City Council, Gosford City Council, Lithgow City Council and Wingecarribee Shire Council to protect and restore the federally listed Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone endangered ecological community.
It is funded through a 12 month $400,000 federal Caring for Country grant operating across all four LGAs as well as a 3 year $250,000 NSW Environmental Trust grant focused on the Blue Mountains City Council and Lithgow City Council Local Government Areas. [Source: Blue Mountains Council, ^http://saveourswamps.com.au/index.php]
.
Blue Mountains SwampA ‘hanging swamp‘ – hanging on a steep slope
.
The Blue Mountains National Park is one of seven national parks which collectively comprise a million hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains Area, which since 2000 has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This area is protected internationally for (1) its outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals and (2) contain 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. [Read More about ^The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage values]
.
Since 12th May 2005, ‘Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone‘ have been recognised as an important and rare ecological community listed as Endangered under the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, as well as within New South Wales under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) (TSC Act).
So naturally, one would expect such swamps to be identified, mapped and ecologically protected – one would expect. .
These swamps occur naturally in very few places on the planet, as shown (in red) in the following distribution map within south eastern Australia:
Blue Mountains Swamps are included as part of the Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone. These are the top two red areas in the above map.
The Blue Mountains west of Sydney are Triassic sandstone plateaux. Blue Mountain Swamps occur in shallow, low-sloping, often narrow headwater valleys (Keith and Benson 1988; Benson and Keith 1990), on long gentle open drainage lines in the lowest foot slopes, low-lying broad valley floors and alluvial flats (Department of Environment and Conservation 2006), and in gully heads, open depressions on ridgetops and steep valley sides associated with semi-permanent water seepage (Holland et al. 1992; Blue Mountains City Council 2005; Department of Environment and Conservation 2006).
Farmers Creek Swamp
Newnes Plateau, Blue Mountains – is it protected? Or just not targeted for development yet?
Grevillea acanthifolia (pink flower) in the foreground
[Source: Lithgow Environment Group, ^http://www.lithgowenvironment.org/swamp_watch2.shtml]
.
Most of these swamps are situated within the Greater Blue Mountains Area and so are ecologically protected, but many are not. Many Blue Mountains Swamps are situated just outside on the fringe lands. Those fringe lands lie on the bush interface with human residential settlement and despite their environmental protection on paper are at risk of being bulldozed for housing development. Such threats from development are referred to as ‘edge effects‘. These swamps are on the edge of housing development, or put the more chronological way, housing development is being allowed to encroach upon the edge of these swamps that were there first. Other Blue Mountains Swamps such as those up on Newnes Plateau are at risk of being bulldozed and drained for mining.
According to the Blue Mountains Council, there are less than 3,000 hectares of Blue Mountains Swamp in existence. As they predominantly comprise many small areas, they are very susceptible to edge effects. As the urban footprint expands to the edges of the plateau, the swamps are coming under ever increasing pressure.
The predominant threats to Blue Mountains Swamps are:
.
Clearing for urban development
Urban runoff – sediment deposition, tunnelling and channelisation from stormwater discharges
Bushfire (both ‘wild’ and ‘hazard’ reduction)
Weed invasion
Nutrient enrichment (urban runoff)
Mowing
Grazing
Water extraction (bores, tapping natural springs and building dams)
.
[Source: ‘Blue Mountains Swamps’, Blue Mountains Council, ^http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/sustainableliving/environmentalinformation/livingcatchments/bluemountainsswamps/]
.
Blue Mountains Swamp
Here an acre of pristine Coral Fern (Gleicheniadicarpa) burned at Devil’s Hole, Katoomba
It was set fire to (‘hazard reduced’) by National Parks and Wildlife (NSW) on 20120911
Photo by Editor 20120922, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge
..
Blue Mountains Swamps – substrate characteristics
.
Blue Mountains Swamps are characterised by the constant presence of groundwater seeping along the top of impermeable claystone layers in the sandstone and reaches the surface where the claystone protrudes (Keith and Benson 1988; Holland et al. 1992; Blue Mountains City Council 2005).
The substrate tends to be a shallow black to grey coloured acid, peaty, loamy sandy soil with organic matter and are poorly drained and so tend to be either constantly or intermittently water logged (Hope and Southern 1983; Keith and Benson 1988; Benson and Keith 1990; Stricker and Brown 1994; Stricker and Wall 1994; Winning and Brown 1994; Stricker and Stroinovsky 1995; Benson and McDougall 1997; Whinam and Chilcott 2002; Department of Environment and Conservation 2006).
Blue Mountains Swamp on Newnes Plateau
The swamps naturally trap sediment and disperse rain water over a wide area and protect floors of headwater valleys from erosion. They vary in structure and species composition according to geology, topographic location, depth of the water table, extent and duration of water logging and bushfire frequency.
.
Blue Mountains Swamps – vegetation variation
.
The structure of Blue Mountains Swamp vegetation varies from open shrubland to closed heath or open heath (dominated by shrub species but with a sedge and graminoid understorey and occasionally with scattered low trees) to sedgeland and closed sedgeland. The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area ids listed for its outstanding natural values, a major component of which is the high number of eucalypt species and eucalypt-dominated communities. These can be found in a great variety of plant communities including within and upslope of Blue Mountains Swamps.
Topographic location, hydrology and soils significantly influence the dominant species composition. Structure of the vegetation varies from closed heath or scrub to open heath to closed sedgeland or fernland. The common cross-feature with all types is the presence of frequently waterlogged soil.
The Gully Swamp
Dominant tree canopy is Eucalyptus oreades
This one’s ‘protected’ as an Aboriginal Place under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW), Part 6
Yet it is infested with environmental and noxious weeds – so what does ‘protected’ mean?
(Photo by Editor 20110502, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge)
.
Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Tree Species
.
Eucalyptus mannifera subsp. gullickii
Mountain Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus aquatica)
Eucalyptus copulans
Ed: Blue Mountains Ash (Eucalyptus oreades), only at creek headwaters around Katoomba
Eucalyptus mannifera (subspecies ‘gullickii’)
Found naturally in a Blue Mountains Swamp
Flax-leaf Heath Myrtle (Baeckea linifolia)
In a Blue Mountains Swamp, flowering in late summer
(Photo by Editor 20080128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge)
.
Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Fern Species
.
Water ferns (Blechnum nudum)
Pouched Coral ferns Gleichenia spp (G. dicarpa and G. microphylla)
Umbrella ferns Sticherus spp
King Fern (Todea barbara)
Drosera binata
.
Blue Mountains Swamp – is this one protected?
.
Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Sedge Species
.
Large tussock sedge, Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus
Rhizomatous sedges and cord rushes:
Soft Twig Rush (Baumea rubiginosa)
Lepidosperma limicola
Ptilothrix deusta
Lepyrodia scariosa
Leptocarpus tenax
Cord-rush (Baloskion longipes)
.
‘Edge Effects’ – when housing development is allowed to encroach upon Blue Mountains Swamps
(Where Fifth Avenue Katoomba has priority over the headwaters of Yosemite Creek, before it enters the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area)
Tree species here is Eucalyptus mannifera subsp. gullickii
Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge
.
Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Grasses and Herbs Species
.
Deyeuxia spp (D. gunniana, D. quadriseta),
Swamp Millet (sachne globosa )
Lachnogrostis filiformis
Poa spp (P. labillardierei var. labillardierei, P. sieberiana)
What is common across the above varying substrate and vegetation characteristics, that differentiates a Blue Mountains Swamp from other vegetation communities are the following attributes:
Situated on the Narrabeen Sandstone plateaux across the Blue Mountains region
Underlying sandstone, ironstone and claystone bedrock forming a horizontal impermeable layer
Ancient peaty sandy soil with organic matter that is poorly drained
Presence of groundwater
Constantly or intermediately waterlogged soil
Locally native vegetation that thrives in such waterlogged soils
.
Q: But where do the spatial limits of a Blue Mountains Swamp begin and end? Are Blue Mountains Swamps dependent upon the health of adjoining vegetation communities, particularly of those upstream.
A: Probably, but who knows and who is researching Blue Mountains Swamps?
Q: Is it the physical characteristics that differentiate a Blue Mountains Swamp from other less significant vegetation communities or is it our selective attitudes that decide whether to protect it or condemn it?
God Government Death Lever
.
A Save or Bulldoze Case Study:
‘Katoomba Creek Swamp at Twynam Street’
.
Katoomba Creek Swamp
With a cluster of magnificent King Ferns (Todea barbara) up the back, which are dependent upon constant ground water seepage
Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge
Katoomba Creek in the Upper Central Blue Mountains flows northward from a central plateau into the Grose Valley within the Blue Mountains National Park.
Katoomba Creek Swamp
Dominated by Pouched Coral Ferns (Gleichenia dicarpa), which are dependent upon constant ground water seepage
Tree canopy is Blue Mountains Ash (Eucalyptus oreades), which is rare and in the Blue Mountains found only around Katoomba
Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge
.
The headwaters of Katoomba Creek are forked from four upland gullies, one which has been dammed for water reservoir (Cascade Reservoir), and another starts near Twynam Street which forms the outer settlement area of Katoomba. It is just three kilometres upstream from the World Heritage Area – the boundary of which is rather arbitrary and should be here at the precious headwaters.
Yet despite the substrate and vegetation characteristics of the creek headwaters suiting those of a Blue Mountains Swamp, Blue Mountains Council’s chief housing development manager, Paul Weston, Executive Principal, Building & Construction Services on 13th February 2012 deemed that “the vegetation community across the site is consistent with the Eucalyptus oreades Open Forest community, and known variations of that community, and is not a hanging swamp.”
“The inspections confirmed that some basic features common to hanging swamps are present on the land, such as steep slopes and groundwater seepage which supports the occurrence of the fern species Pouched Coral Fern (Gleichenia dicarpa), which is also found in swamps. However, the absence of many typical Blue Mountains Swamp species, the presence of a prominent tree canopy, the absence of peat formation and the co-existence of the ferns with established and emerging sclerophyll shrub species, make this community inconsistent with that of the Blue Mountains Swamp Community.”
Furthermore, while the sheltered south easterly aspect, steep slope, the underlying geology and locally moist conditions provide a niche within the forested E. oreades- E. radiata – E. piperita community for ferns and other species to flourish in the wet conditions, the area does not support the usual suite of Blue Mountains swamp sedges, ground layer and shrub vegetation, nor the development of peat, nor is it wet enough to prevent the co-existence of other drier sclerophyll forest understory and canopy species in this vicinity.
The Proposed Housing Development Site at 121 Twynam Street Katoomba
The same Katoomba Creek Swamp – Tasman Flax-lily (Dianella tasmanica) in foreground
Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge
.
Blue Mountains Council’s Environmental Scientist and Environmental/Landscape Assessment Officer have inspected and assessed this swamp and deemed it not a swamp but a ‘wet forest‘.
Ed: What puritanical pretense!
.
This pristine vegetation community lies wholly within the riparian zone of the headwaters of Katoomba Creek (just metres away from the above photo). The underlying substrate is sandstone, ironstone and claystone bedrock forming a horizontal impermeable layer. The soil is ancient peaty sandy soil with organic matter that is poorly drained. It has constant groundwater causing waterlogged soil. The vegetation is a carpet of Pouched Coral Ferns, with a large cluster of King Ferns. It has Soft Twig Rush (Baumea rubiginosa), its Lepidosperma limicola (sedge grass in foreground). The tree canopy is Eucalyptus oreades which is common across Blue Mountains Swamps found at creek headwaters, but endemic only around Katoomba.
Is this more Swamp Selective Bias?
Indeed, the Blue Mountains Council ecological mapping assigned this site as a dry sclerophyll Eucalyptus piperita/ Eucalyptus sieberi forest. Woops.
The Council judgment letter stated that this site is zoned under Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1991 as Residential Bushland Conservation. But in fact, 80% of the site is zoned as a ‘Protected Area – Environmental Constraint‘ (see below extract). Woops.
.
The ‘Environmental Constraint Area‘ zoning under Local Enviropnment Plan 1991 for 121 Twynam Street (perimeter highlighted)
covers 80% of the site from the street frontage.
.
LEP 1991 Protected Areas Objectives: Clause 7.2 Environmental Constraint Area
.
(a) To protect environmentally sensitive land and areas of high scenic value in the City (Ed: not that any reasonable person could possibly deem the Blue Mountains to be a ‘city’). (b) To provide a buffer around areas of ecological significance.(Ed: Such as a pristine Blue Mountains Swamp) (c) To restrict development on land that is inappropriate by reason of its physical characteristics or bushfire risk. (Ed: the site is Bushfire Risk Category 1)
.
121 Twynam Street is zoned a Category 1 Bushfire Risk
.
The Slope of the site exceeds 33% grade, which exceeds the limits for the Council’s development criteria
“The Council shall not consent to development in a Protected Area – Environmental Constraint Area, unless it is satisfied, by means of a detailed environmental assessment, that the development complies with the objectives of the Protected Area that are relevant to the development and will comply with the Development Criteria in clause 10 that are relevant to the development.”
Council Judgment:
.
“In conclusion it is considered that the proposed dwelling and driveway have been designed and located to ensure that the development will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and is suitable for the site.”
.
[Sources: ‘Proposed dwelling at 121 Twynam Street, Katoomba” letter by Paul Weston, Executive Principal, Building & Construction Services, Blue Mountains Council’s Development, Health & Customer Services Department, 20120213, Ref: X/69/2010; Blue Mountains Council website – ‘Interactive Maps’, ^http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/index.cfm]
.
Ed: So is this judgment and the process one of selective blindness, ignoring rules, hypocrisy, incompetence, or worse? In the case of Katoomba Creek Swamp, the decision is not to save this particular Blue Mountains Swamp, but to bulldoze it.
I fully agree with the Editor’s comments. This destruction of the Blue Mountain Swamp by bulldozing it is absolute vandalism on the part of the Blue Mountains Council and the Department responsible for the Environment.
Q. When a protected swamp is not deemed a swamp but a wet forest?
A. when money is to be made from its development like housing or mining as the economy is most important.
Unfortunately we do not see the reality of us being part of and dependent on the natural environment that is why laws protecting the natural environment or biodiversity are very weak and subordinate to economic gain. This is very clear from the status we assign to ministers eg. the treasurer or minister for mining would be demoted if moved to the position of an environment minister.
For reference to how we destroy Australia’s swamps see Bill Gammage “The Biggest Estate on Earth”, Allen & Unwin 2011 Chapter 3, p.106
This development is particularily sad and a huge mistake. It is not just the owner being allowed to destroy his own pristine bush and swamp but he is going to destroy mine as well as my swamp is adjacent and steeply below his land. The development is entirely within the water catchment of the swamp and within part of the swamp without any buffer zone what so ever. The clearing needed for the APZ is huge because of being in Cat 1 fire zoning and will leave the whole slope on my western border open to erosion, mud slides and huge drainage issues for the whole street and the next street. The whole development of the road and house is on mostly over 33 slope on both public and private land and all within environmental restraint zone. This zoning in the hands of the council does not restrain anything so it seems. These laws should have been enough to stop development even being mooted in the first place. Where is the protection for my swamp? The choice to protect my swamp and my house from water and wind damage will be removed by council ignoring the laws in place for building developments and environmental protection if this development is allowed to go ahead.
Crimson Rosella in snow, a native to The Gully
(Platycercus elegans)
(Photo by Editor, 20121012, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)
.
It rarely snows in Katoomba in the Blue Mountains these days. In the old days it used to snow every winter, but these days we are lucky to get a brief flurry in August that doesn’t even settle.
So this morning was exceptional. The forecast today (Friday) was for a storm further south, but at 6am in Katoomba it started snowing. And in the middle of October (spring)!
Then it kept snowing and kept snowing ‘ till after 1pm. A few big tree branches crashed under the weight of snow. The streets and roads steadily became blanketed in snow, making them slippery and dangerous to most vehicles. The Great Western Highway remains closed. The trains are snowbound up at Mount Vic. It’s like we’re in the Alps where snow there is normal, but here no-one was ready for it. Snow has regrettably become a freak event in the Blue Mountains.
We must have received about half a foot of snow by lunchtime. Everything became soft white in a black and white landscape.
So it became quite a special morning and well worth a walk around The Gully in the snow.
.
The Gully in Snow
(Photo by Editor, 20121012, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)
.
(Click play, then click full screen icon at bottom right of video)
.
Streets around The Gully in Snow
(Photo by Editor, 20121012, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)
.
Tyre tracks through the snow in Katoomba
(Photo by Editor, 20121012, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)
Panamanian Golden Frog
(Atelopus zeteki)
Now possibly Extinct in the Wild
(Photo by Brian Gratwicke, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Virginia, USA)
.
The Panamanian Golden Frog (Atelopus zeteki) is considered ‘Critically Endangered‘ by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Only three animals of this species have been seen in the wild since late 2007 and it is now quite possibly ‘Extinct in the Wild‘.
Fortunately for the species though, approximately 1,500 animals still exist aboard the AArk, thanks to the work of Project Golden Frog (www.ProjectGoldenFrog.org) and the El Valle Amphibian Conservation Center (EVACC) (www.houstonzoo.org/amphibians/) in central Panama.
The Amphibian Ark is currently trying to help create a dedicated facility in Panama, at the EVACC, to house an expanding population of golden frogs that will hopefully someday be used for reintroduction back into the wild.
‘Chytridiomycosis‘, a devastating amphibian disease, has spread to Panama’s Darien region, the last protected area in Central America. ‘Chytridiomycosis‘ is highly contagious across amphibians like frogs and is caused by a ‘chytrid fungus‘ (pronounced ‘kit-rid‘). The fungus is implicated in the decline or rapid extinction of at least 200 species of frogs and other amphibians worldwide, including twenty critically endangered frog species throughout Central America such as the Panamanian Golden Frog.
Smithsonian researchers found the disease in 2% of the 93 frogs tested. Yet the highly contagious disease has decimated numerous frog species worldwide, although some populations in Australia and the US appear to be making a comeback by evolving greater resistance. Within a span of five months, the fungus eradicated half of the frog species and 80% of individuals at the El Cope Nature Reserve in western Panama.
.
Nearly one-third of the world’s amphibians face extinction due to habitat loss, pollution and climate change with chytridiomycosis contributing to the extinction of 94 frog species since 1980.
.
The Panama Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Project has established captive colonies of two harlequin frog species endemic to Darien should they vanish from the wild.
‘The Hidden Plague’Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa) corpses lie belly-up
(Photo by Joel Sartore)
Highly Commended photo in Environment Wildlife Photographer of the Year (2010)
Natural History Museum (London)
.
‘This is a crime scene in a remote corner of California, high in the Sixty Lakes Basin area of the Sierra Nevada: mountain yellow-legged frog corpses lie belly-up. The ‘chytridiomycosis‘ was first detected in dying frogs in the Sierra Nevada in 2004. It has since reduced the population of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs from tens of thousands to under a hundred.
The death of the frogs is emblematic of a global amphibian decline. It’s believed that the fungus is being spread in part by the international trade in amphibians for display, food and laboratory use, its effects enhanced by global warming.
.
Its impact on frogs has resulted in the biggest loss of vertebrate life due to disease ever recorded.
2003: Chytridiomycosis listed as a Key Threatening Process across Australia
.
In Australia, in 2003 Chytridiomycosis was acknowledged as a global epidemic impacting Australian frogs and amphibians and listed as a Key Threatening Process infecting and wiping out native frogs on Schedule 3 of the New South Wales (NSW) Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (22 August 2003).
The Chytridiomycosis disease is caused by the chytrid (fungus) ‘Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis‘ (Longcore et al. 1999), potentially fatal to all native species of amphibian.
As such, all frog species that are listed under the schedules of the Act may be affected by the disease. Fifty species of Australian frogs have been found infected with the chytrid fungus.
.
In NSW, 22 species, more than one quarter of the total NSW amphibian fauna, have been diagnosed with the disease.
.
High altitude (>400m) populations are more severely affected by Chytridiomycosis. Such population declines have been reported from the NSW uplands (Gillespie and Hines 1999, Hines et al. 1999). Stream-associated frog species are more likely to be infected because the pathogen is waterborne. The following are stream-breeding species of the NSW coast and ranges and may be threatened by chytridiomycosis (Gillespie and Hines 1999).
All amphibians are facing global extinction. It is that serious!
.
It is not just the world’s frogs that are at risk of extinction. All amphibian species are facing a current global extinction crisis of unprecedented magnitude.
The major factors causing their decline are the emerging disease Chytridiomycosis and Habitat Destruction.
Chytridiomycosis is caused by the aquatic fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and has been linked to species extinctions and population declines in montane regions including Australia, Panama, North America, and Spain. Currently, it is debated whether the recent emergence of the pathogen is largely the result of environmental factors triggering an outbreak of an endemic pathogen or if the epidemic has been caused by widespread introduction of the pathogen into naïve host populations (‘pathogen pollution‘).
We studied the population genetics of chytridiomycosis using DNA sequences from a global panel of strains. These data showed evidence of a strong genetic bottleneck in the history of the pathogen, and the epidemic appears traceable to the widespread dispersal of a single genotype. Populations were not structured by host-origin, and the same lineage was detected in populations of both resistant and highly sensitive species. The data suggest that the chytridiomycosis epidemic is caused by the emergence of a novel pathogen but that disease outcome is contingent on host resistance and environmental factors.
[Source: ‘Rapid Global Expansion of the Fungal Disease Chytridiomycosis into Declining and Healthy Amphibian Populations‘, by Timothy Y. James(1,2), Anastasia P. Litvintseva (3), Rytas Vilgalys (1), Jess A. T. Morgan (4), John W. Taylor (5), Matthew C. Fisher (6), Lee Berger (7), Ché Weldon (8), Louis du Preez (8), Joyce E. Longcore (9), ^http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1000458 –
.
Academic References:
.
Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries, Animal Research Institute, Yeerongpilly, Queensland, Australia
Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America
Imperial College Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, St. Mary’s Campus, London, United Kingdom
School of Public Health, Tropical Medicine and Rehabilitation Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
School of Environmental Sciences and Development, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
School of Biology & Ecology, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, United States of America]
Upwards of 40% of amphibian species are in decline worldwide, owing to several factors:
.
Habitat Loss
Environmental Degradation
Pollutants
Disease
Trade in Amphibians
.
The fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis has emerged as a major threat to amphibians, which leads to the fatal chytridiomycosis in susceptible species.
The first documented outbreaks of chytrid fungus occurred in the late 1990s simultaneously in Australia and Central America. Since then the pathogen has been detected in over 100 amphibian species and has been associated with severe population declines or extinctions in several regions throughout the world. A great deal is still unknown about the biology of this pathogen, therefore it remains an active area of research for disease ecologists and conservation biologists.
.
(Click image to enlarge)
.
Chytrid Fungus on Frogs:
.
B. dendrobatidis is an external pathogen that attaches to keratinized portions of amphibians, including the mouthparts of tadpoles and the skin of adults. The fungus reproduces via sporangia, and may be spread by movement of flagellated zoospores, direct contact between hosts, or between host stages. Growth of the fungus leads to degradation of the keratin layer, which eventually causes sloughing of skin, lethargy, weight loss, and potentially death. The physiological mechanism for chytrid-induced mortality is not known, but it appears to stem from disruption of skin function – such as fluid transport or gas exchange.
The chytrid fungus is known to infect over 100 species, but susceptibility to disease is highly life stage and species specific. For example, in mountain yellow legged frog (Rana muscosa) tadpoles suffer generally mild sublethal effects, with most mortality occurring at metamorphosis when there is a rapid production of newly keratinized skin tissue. Conversely, several other amphibian species appear to be relatively tolerant to B. dendrobatidis – including some widespread exotic or invasive species, such as the Marine Toad (Bufo marinus), American Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and African Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis).
At the population level, chytrid fungus outbreaks have been associated with local and possible species extinctions in Australia, Central America, and the United States.
For example, in 2004 chytrid fungus prevalence in parts of Panama increased from zero to nearly 60% over approximately 4 months, with concomitant declines in amphibian density and diversity of over 80% and 60%, respectively. B. dendrobatidis is thought to thrive in cool, moist habitats. This has been used to argue that cooling trends observed in parts of Central America are driving chytrid-induced amphibian extinctions in these regions.
.
Distribution:
.
One explanation for the recent emergence of chytridiomycosis in amphibians, the “novel pathogen hypothesis”, is that B. dendrobatidis existed historically as a locally distributed pathogen that only recently was spread to new regions. Alternatively, the “endemic pathogen hypothesis” posits that the chytrid fungus was historically widespread but that recent environmental change (e.g., climate change, pollutants, habitat degradation) altered its pathogenicity. The relative importance of these two mechanisms is currently a source of debate. Low genetic diversity among geographically distant B. dendrobatidis strains is consistent with the first hypothesis, but synchronicity of chytrid fungus outbreaks in disparate, intact habitats supports the latter hypothesis.
The first described outbreaks of chytrid fungus occurred in 1998 in both Australia and Central America. Since then B. dendrobatidis infections have been documented throughout the Americas, including Mexico and the U.S., Europe, and most recently in Southeast Asia.
The oldest known chytrid fungus infections are from museum specimens of African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis) collected in 1938. These specimens have been used to argue for an African origin for B. dendrobatidis.
It is believed that the chytrid was then spread to other continents in the 1960s and 70s through commercial trade of these African frogs. (Ed: i.e. poaching)
.
Research:
.
The link between chytridiomycosis and amphibian decline is an active area of research worldwide. The genome of B. dendrobatidis has been sequenced, which should prove useful for identifying the origin, mechanisms of virulence, and potential control methods for this pathogen. University of California researchers have been studying this pathogen for several years, especially the impacts of chytrid fungus on populations of the mountain yellow legged frog (Rana muscosa) in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California.
This once abundant alpine frog has undergone severe declines in recent years, with numerous local die-offs. Research is being conducted on the spatial epidemiology of disease in R. muscosa, to understand why some local populations persist whereas others go extinct. Projects include identifying the modes of pathogen spread, impacts of outbreaks on alpine food webs, and the population genetic consequences of outbreaks for frogs.
With regard to frog population and disease management, experiments include evaluating the efficacy of anti-fungal treatments and the feasibility of reintroducing frogs into previous outbreak areas.
.
[Source: ‘Chytrid Fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis)’, Center for Invasive Species Research, University of California, Riverside, USA, ^http://cisr.ucr.edu/chytrid_fungus.html]
.
(Click image to enlarge)
.
Chytrid fungus killing off Tasmanian Frogs
.
Healthy Tasmanian Tree Frog
(Litoria burrowsae – endemic to Western Tasmania)
(Photo by Iain Stych)
.
What is chytrid fungus?
.
‘Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis‘ causes the disease known as chytridiomycosis or chytrid infection which currently threatens Tasmania’s native amphibians.
The fungus infects the skin of frogs destroying its structure and function, and can ultimately cause death. Sporadic deaths occur in some frog populations, and 100 per cent mortality occurs in other populations.
Chytrid infection has been devastating to frog species causing extinctions worldwide. The international trade of frogs probably brought the fungus to Australia from Africa. The disease has now been recorded in four regions in Australia – the east coast, southwest Western Australia, Adelaide, and more recently Tasmania. In mainland Australia chytrid has caused the extinction of one frog species, and has been associated with the extinction of three other species. In addition, the threatened species status of others frogs has worsened through severe declines in numbers.
.
What is the threat to Tasmanian frogs?
.
Tasmania supports 11 frog species with three of these species, the Tasmanian Tree Frog, the Tasmanian Froglet and the Moss Froglet, found nowhere else in the world. These precious species are at risk from the disease. In addition, two other frog species, the Green and Golden Frog and the Striped Marsh Frog, are already threatened in Tasmania. Chytrid infection has the potential to devastate these, and other frog populations.
Chytrid-infected Queensland Great Barred Frog
(Mixophyes fasciolatus)
(Photo Lee Berger)
.
What does an infected frog look like?
Abnormal posture and behaviour. Frogs may sit with their hind legs out, wobble or show difficulty moving or fleeing, or may even have a seizure.
Skin changes. The skin may be discoloured, peel, or possibly ulcerated. The body may swell.
Sudden death.
Tadpoles may demonstrate abnormal mouthparts. These abnormalities are difficult to detect and require expertise.
.
How is it spread?
.
The movement of infected frogs, tadpoles and water are the known key agents of spread. The fungus (or infected frogs or tadpoles) can be spread by people in water and mud on boots, camping equipment and vehicle tyres, and in water used for drinking, or spraying on gravel roads or fighting fires.
.
Where is chytrid in Tasmania?
.
In Tasmania, chytrid infection has spread widely in habitats associated with human disturbance and will continue to spread unless we act quickly. Once established, it is extremely difficult to eradicate chytrid fungus from the natural environment.
.
Remote areas in Tasmania, particularly the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, are still largely free of disease and it is our challenge to keep it out.
.
What is being done?
.
The distribution of chytrid fungus in Tasmania has been mapped by DPIPWE and the Central North Field Naturalists. Ongoing monitoring of important areas is being conducted by DPIPWE. Our increasing knowledge of this important disease is crucial if we are to effectively reduce fungal spread to uninfected frog habitat.
The National Chytrid Threat Abatement PlanYou are now leaving our site. DPIPWE is not responsible for the content of the web site to which you are going. The link does not constitute any form of endorsement aims to prevent further spread of chytrid fungus in Australia, and to decrease the impact of the fungus on currently infected populations.
DPIPWE supports the national threat abatement plan in the recently produced strategy for managing wildlife disease in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Chytrid fungal disease is the top priority in the Strategy and a number of management actions are being undertaken. In addition, the Wildlife Health in Tasmania Manual describes chytrid infection in more detail.
Land management agencies are reviewing their practices to determine activities that have potential to spread chytrid fungus and ways to minimise the spread.
.
Is there any effective treatment?
.
To date there is no effective way to effectively treat wild infected frog populations. The main aim of management is to prevent further spread of chytrid fungus from infected to uninfected sites. Chytrid fungus is killed by effective cleaning and drying. In addition, a number of disinfectants are effective.
.
What to consider when collecting and reporting tadpoles and frogs?
.
If it is necessary to collect tadpoles or frogs, always return them to the collection site. Contact DPIPWE for information relating to frog collection and permits. Never move frogs or tadpoles to new locations.
Remember it is an offence to take or disturb frogs and tadpoles in Tasmania’s national parks and other reserves without a permit. It is also an offence to bring frogs or tadpoles into reserves.
Never release frogs found in imported fresh produce (usually banana boxes) and nursery products. Report non-Tasmanian frogs for collection to Wildlife Enquiries, DPIPWE.
Report sightings of sick or dead frogs to Wildlife Enquiries, DPIPWE.
.
What you can do to stop the spread of chytrid?
.
Keep your gear clean – clean boots and camping equipment of soil and allow to dry completely before visiting remote areas.
Plan to wash and dry vehicles (including tyres) and equipment before entering dirt roads within areas that are reserved or largely free of human disturbance.
Think about water disposal – when disposing of small or large volumes of water within a natural environment, ensure you are as far as possible from creeks, rivers, ponds and lakes. A dry stony disposal site is far preferable to a moist muddy one.
Avoid transferring aquatic plants, water, soils and animals between frog habitats (for example, nursery plants, wet land fill and fish).
Hygiene protocols for biologists and field workers visiting freshwater environments are outlined at the James Cook University web site on amphibian diseasesYou are now leaving our site. DPIPWE is not responsible for the content of the web site to which you are going. The link does not constitute any form of endorsement.
Education in relation to disease management is critical if we are to stop the spread of this important disease. Spread the word!’
[Ed: This is why we wrote this article, but also, when we attended a photographic exhibition of The Environment Wildlife Photographer of the Year (2010) and saw Joel Sartore’s photo ‘The Hidden Plague’, it disturbed us]
.
.
2012: Disease is getting worse – it’s now killing off previously tolerant species
.
‘There is no point sending healthy animals out into the world if they’re just going to catch a deadly disease.
Pacific tree frogs that can survive a normally lethal fungus infection are spreading it to species that cannot. Such “reservoir” species could threaten frogs released from captive breeding programmes.
Between 2003 and 2010, the deadly chytrid fungus slashed the populations of two frog species in the Sierra Nevada, while populations of a third species – the Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla) – held steady. That isn’t because the Pacific tree frogs avoided infection: two-thirds of the Sierra Nevada population carry the fungus, Vance Vredenburg of San Francisco State University has now found. That suggests they can tolerate infection and so could spread the pathogen to new areas.
Conservationists are breeding threatened amphibians in captivity in the hope of eventually re-establishing them in the wild. But reintroductions will fail if there is a reservoir species nearby, Vredenburg warns.
The solution may be to breed from frog populations already decimated by the chytrid fungus, says Matthew Fisher of Imperial College London. There is evidence that some frogs are evolving tolerance, and survivors from an affected population are more likely to have the vital genes. These frogs could be cross-bred with susceptible individuals, accelerating the spread of tolerance – although Fisher admits the approach will be expensive.’
The frogs like miner’s canaries’, have been recognized for some time now by scientists as good indicators of the state of our natural environment. Because a healthy natural environment is crucial to our survival, ignoring what happens to the frogs is effectively ignoring what will befall our species. Unfortunately the time delays between the causes of environment degradation and their visible effects makes us oblivious to the dangers that lie in stock for us just like the frogs are oblivious to their fate when the water they are in is slowly brought up to boil.
B-Double truck plying the Great Western Highway
New South Wales, Australia
(Photo by Editor 20121005, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)
.
It’s all about trucks, bigger trucks, more trucks.
.
An Innocuous Announcement
.
The government of the State of New South Wales (NSW) in Australia late last month announced its plans to rename New South Wales’ major roads, highways, freeways and tollways under an alpha-numeric rebranding, akin to the British road numbering system.
Its ‘Alpha Numeric Route Marker Project‘ will affect more than 60 routes across NSW identified for the upgrade at a forecast cost of around $20 million. The delegated agency, the NSW Roads and Maritime Services (the rebranded ‘Roads and Traffic Authority’), is to roll out this new system of highway route numbering between March and December 2013.
[Source: ‘Have Your Say’, Bang the Table Pty Ltd (ACN 127 001 236) – a public relations consultancy outsourced by the NSW Government to deal with communities (voters) ^http://haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/road-route-markers]
.
The new system will include a combination of letters and numbers between 1 and 99.
Well, in the case of the Great Western Highway through the Blue Mountains (formerly called the Western Road) it will lose its historically familiar name and be rebranded the rather clinical and characterless ‘A32‘.
Instead of people travelling along the famous Great Western Highway over the Blue Mountains, they will simply follow the rather nondescript ‘A32‘, which will sound no different to the ‘A31‘ or the ‘A33‘, wherever they are?
Clinical and characterless trunk routing in the UK
.
Removing the ‘Great Western Highway‘ name will erase its historical meaning to travellers – the oldest highway into inland Australia. The highway journey itself will supplanted by getting from A to B, as fast as possible. The Blue Mountains used to be a destination, but is steadily being transformed into a route from Sydney on the A32 to other destinations further west. So much for the tourism upon which so many Blue Mountains folk so vitally depend.
Grose Valley, Blue Mountains
(Photo by Editor 20060625, free in public domain)
.
..What Blue Mountains? Where? Oh! Was that them?
.
As the highway is widened and transformed into a trucking expressway, the Blue Mountains from the highway is looking urban just like Sydney. The Blue Mountains as a destination is steadly fading into another fast transit route into and out of Sydney, like the F3.
It is quite contradictory for the NSW Roads Minister, Duncan Gay, to promise that the road routes will retain their regular name, along with their new alpha-numeric designation. Why spend $20 million to rebrand the regular road naming with alpha-numeric road naming, only to retain the regular naming? The current road naming already displays the route number, as evidenced by the Route ‘32‘ symbol on the current Great Western Highway sign below. So why change it?
Great Western Highway across the Blue Mountains
(National Trucking Route 32)
(Photo by Editor 20121005, free in public domain)
.
But the alpha numeric road renaming is clearly more than just renaming. It is ‘road rebranding‘ as a first phase of the government’s ‘road reclassification‘ strategy. It is one thing to upgrade a regional highway like the Great Western Highway; it is quite blue sky to reclassify it into a ‘Route of National Significance‘.
The alpha numeric road renaming is a precursor to reclassifying the Great Western Highway as an ‘A’ grade route of national significance, which is what the Hume Freeway is. Reclassification sets the precedent for the highway over the Mountains to bve upgraded to the likes of the Hume, if goivernmenyt so wishes. Both will be deemed A’ grade routes of national significance. It is a one size fits all approach from the urbane big brother in Macquarie Street.
This announced road renaming will follow a policy trend interstate in Queensland, Victoria and South Australia and so will be consistent with these adjoining states. NSW will mirror the road numbering system in Britain which has established ‘trunk roads‘ as designated long distance trucking routes interconnecting cities, ports and airports.
This road rebranding is about facilitating national trucking linehaul across state borders. It is all about encouraging more road freight across the country. For line-haul trucking, the aim is getting from A to B, as fast as possible. The slower the road journey, the higher the freight cost.
British Motorways: conceived, designed and built principly for road freight
[Source: ‘FTA man joins DfT for lorry charge development’, 20121004, by Chris Tindall, ^http://www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/fta-s-ch, accessed 20121005]
.
But the NSW Government’s official selling point is that its alpha numeric road rebranding is all so that motorists have “a better way to navigate NSW roads”. “It will be a more intuitive way for road users to navigate around NSW. These changes will help simplify journeys, making them safe, efficient and enjoyable.”
According to the RTA-RMS, the upgrade of the Great Western Highway is to ‘improve road safety’, ‘improve road freight efficiency’, ‘cater for the mix of through, local and tourist traffic and ‘be sensitive to the area’s natural environment, heritage and local communities.’ [Source: ^http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/great_western_hway/index.html]
However, one suspects given the RTA-RMS’s arrogant track record of its expressway bulldozing through roadside vegetation and local communities, that the primary mission is one-eyed to ‘improve road freight efficiency’. The other aims are merely for RTA-RMS public relations tricky appeasement, freeing up the expressway engineers to proceed business-as-usual.
Great Western Highway bulldozed out to four lanes at Katoomba
(Photo by The Habitat Advocate 20090501, free in public domain)
.
The NSW Government persuasive language is that the alpha numeric rebranding is to ‘standardise the system’, to end the confusion between states, to identify road corridors ‘in order of their importance‘ and so ‘make it easier for motorists to know if they are travelling on a motorway or a route of national or state significance as they plan their trip.’ In any case the Government’s additional quip is that well road signs in NSW have not been reviewed for 30 years, so that is a valid reason to do so.
Trunk Route 32 starts from industrial areas and is designed purely to route trucking
The Route numbering designation has nothing to do with ordinary motorists; such association is political spin.
.
But why do ordinary motorists need to know whether a road has national or state significance? The route numbers are already there on the current road signs across the State.
The NSW Opposition has dismissed this project as a ‘colossal waste of money that won’t save motorists a single minute in travel time or improve road conditions and safety.’ At the same time the NSW Opposition claims ‘motorists of this State want new roads, less congestion and better road conditions..‘ [Source: ‘New road names a colossal waste of money’, 20120927, by John Robertson, Robert Furolo, ^http://www.nswalp.com/media/news/new-road-names-a-colossal-waste-of-money/]
.
Alpha-Numeric Renaming – a precursor to more Trucking Expressways
.
Could there indeed be another reason for embarking on a $20 million road rebranding project? Is the rebranding in fact a precursor to legislating for B-double trucks to ply regional roads where they are currently prohibited?
It is one thing to upgrade a regional highway like the Great Western Highway; it is quite ‘blue sky’ to reclassifying a regional highway like the Great Western Highway into a ‘Route of National Significance‘.
.
Ed:
This road re-branding is a ‘one-size-fits-all’ edict for uniformity. It serves to abet trucking lobbyists, to befit centralist bureaucrats, while de-personalising local communities in the process. It is a strategic precursor to rolling out more Trucking Expressways. It reeks of rancid Babyboomerism – the self-entitlement, the moral relativism, the utilitarianism, oil-dependent industries…all cultural throwbacks to the exploitative 20th Century. Die off, history beckons!
.
Such reclassification facilitates central government roughshodding of legitimate local community concerns about the adverse and permanent impacts. When the RTA-RMS wants to bulldoze its trucking expressways through local communities, the legal reclassification overrides concerns about the impacts on environment, amenity, land values, equity and access. It is a prejudiced arrogant policy undermining local democratic rights.
The scheme is inherited from the recent NSW Government centralist planning policy that designated projects of State Significance and Projects of National Signifiance. In 2005, the NSW Government conceived its autocratic State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) then in March 2006 imposed its ‘NSW Major Projects Assessment System‘ upon the people of NSW. It was all to ‘remove unnecessary red tape’, ‘clarify the assessment of major projects’, and ‘help NSW remain Australia’s economic powerhouse.’ [Ed: Sometimes spin can be so poetic]
It became known as Part 3A – a new part of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) that simply overruled all other parts. Easy!
Under this planning policy and amended planning legislation, if the NSW Government deemed an infrastructure project to be of ‘State Significance’, then local council objections would be automatically overruled and community protests discarded. The State’s Planning Minister would have ultimate say supposedly in the State’s interest to allow the project to proceed and to roughshod all social impacts and all environmental impacts. It was a return to autocracy, just like in the days of kings and queens ruling over serfs and peasants.
But now for a road to be deemed a ‘Route of National Significance’ (i.e. get the ‘A’ branding), well, local communities will have even less of a voice.
The policy is absolute Putinesk (neo-‘Stalinist’).
Goodbye Bullaburra – set to be the next victim of the Trucking Expressway
(Photo by Editor 20120103, free in public domain, this is a photo for the historical record)
.
This alpha numeric road renaming is ‘road rebranding‘ and the first phase of the government’s ‘road reclassification‘ strategy. It is part of a broader road centric freight agenda that ignores the demonstrable long-term and future-resilient benefits of rail freight nationally.
Reclassifying the Great Western Highway into the A32 Road of National Significance achieves more than upgrading the regional highway to a four-lane trucking expressway, all so that thousands of B-doubles can nudge 90kph on cruise control. The Road of National Significance is national trucking route policy. It will see the 1950’s conceived National Route 32 from Sydney 1154km to Cockburn on the South Australian Border and extend well beyond to Adelaide, Perth and Darwin.
It is 1950s mindset applied in 2013. It is all about facilitating interstate freight by 25 metre long B-Double trucks.
Trunk Route 32, somewhat further west The distance sign heading east from the NSW/SA Border at Cockburn
This is now the western terminus of National Route 32 following the implementation of alpha-numeric route marking in South Australia, Jan 2005.
[Source: ^http://www.ozroads.com.au/NSW/RouteNumbering/National%20Routes/32/nr32.htm]
.
Meanwhile, hectare after hectare of Blue Mountains native vegetation is bulldozed to make way for the ‘Trucking Expressway‘.
Wentworth Falls bushland amenity disappearing for the Trucking Expressway
(Photo by Editor 20120201, free in pubic domain, click image to enlarge)
.
Meanwhile, Australian wildlife slaughtered as roadkill is perpetuated and ignored by the RTA-RMS to make way for the ‘Trucking Expressway‘.
.
Meanwhile, just because the road is wider and faster, humans are not exempt from becoming ‘roadkill’ either.
All we need do is look at Britain, its road-freight centric policy and its consequential trucking carnage legacy.
Trucking Expressways kill local communities in more ways than one
.
Meanwhile, the ongoing trucking carnage legacy continues along already upgraded sections of the Great Western Highway:
[Source: “Frightening” figures released’, by journalist Krystyna Pollard, 20110914, Blue Mountains Gazette (newspaper), p.7]
.
[Source: ‘Gone too soon’, by journalist Damien Madigan, 20110914, Blue Mountains Gazette (newspaper), p.1]
.
[Source: ‘Highway mayhem’, by journalist Shane Desiatnik, 20110803, Blue Mountains Gazette (newspaper), p.1]
.
Linehaul Trucking and pedestrians don’t mixTrucking Economics does not overrule!
[Source: Blue Mountains Gazette (newspaper]
.
.
.
Speeding B-Double overturned at Lapstone on an already widened 4-laned section of the converted Trucking Expressway
[Source Blue Mountains Gazette, 20110729]
.
What is preventing B-Triples bidding for access to Roads of National Significance?
This is absolute madness! It happens in Bendigo as well – 500 year old gum trees have to give way to roads. (For ecological impacts of roads and road effect zones see Nicholas S.G. Williams et al – “The Potential Impact of Freeways on Native grassland”; The Victorian Naturalist, vol. 118 (1) 2001,
pp. 4-15)
The trend in road freights to bigger and bigger trucks and longer road trains shows clearly that rail freight is far more efficient than road freight and of course it is also far less environmentally damaging.
So the money could have been far better spent on upgrading railways if transport efficiency and environmental impact were taken into consideration.
Unfortunately environmental considerations are excluded from our economy driven decision processes, but the likely losses of capital invested by the trucking and road building companies in their trucks road building machinery are not. Thus such decision processes will inevitably favour road over rail freight. That is why, as pointed out in this article, the government is taking steps to “override local community concerns about impacts on environment, amenity, land values, equity and access”
The environmental vandalism that will follow from this reclassification of roads is just the beginning of what lies is store if the Council of Australia Governments’ currently proposed plan to change the federal and state environmental laws will be allowed to go ahead (for details see “Defend Environmental Laws” on http://www.edovic.org.au).
The following article was published in The Australian newspaper at the end of 2011, entitled ‘New dawn in Antarctic awareness’ as a publicity article to a much deeper work by Sam Bateman and Anthony Bergin in an Australian Strategic Policy Institute paper entitled: ‘Sea Change: Advancing Australia’s Ocean Interests’..
.
Antarctica
Photo by Thinkstock
.
With the announcement of an increased US military presence in Australia, our strategic planners are focused on the rising importance of the Indo-Pacific. But we have taken our eye off our southern flank.
Like other rising nations, China and India want a higher profile in Antarctic affairs. But, unlike other countries, they’re chasing that profile with much more vigour and with determined independence. They have active Antarctic programs and are increasing the number of their polar bases. Two of China’s bases are in the Australian Antarctic Territory. Its latest is at Dome A, one of the highest and coldest points on the Antarctic continent.
China is extremely interested in the prospects of future Antarctic resource development.
One of India’s bases has a monitoring role associated with its planned hi-tech monitoring station in northern Madagascar. That station is part of India’s aim to have a presence throughout the Indian Ocean, partly to balance growing Chinese influence there. Satellite technology and research are central to Antarctic operations. Most low-earth orbiting satellites cross the Antarctic continent every 90-100 minutes. If they do so on descending orbits, they can download their data into ground stations in Antarctica.
Countries could make use of their Antarctic bases and the full range of signals and electronic intelligence that require the use of satellites and ground stations for direction-finding and monitoring.
New Delhi, for example, is setting up a remote sensing ground station in eastern Antarctica to boost the remote-sensing data transmitted by Indian satellites. Occupying Dome A is full of political symbolism, but it is no coincidence that the Chinese have established their third station there. At one of the highest points on the continent it’s ideal for sending, receiving or intercepting signals from satellites.
It offers China unprecedented visibility for astronomical research. The main advantage of ground stations in Antarctica is that they can retask satellites in a timely fashion. Advanced defence forces are heavily reliant on space-based infrastructure, communications and navigation systems. China and India could use their Antarctic bases for these purposes.
But how would we know?
To do so would be at odds with the Antarctic Treaty, but the sparse use of the treaty’s inspection mechanisms means that such activity could go undetected.
The US, Russia and China have demonstrated the capability to destroy space vehicles using anti-satellite missiles. India and Pakistan may be prompted to initiate their own space warfare programs. If Antarctic sites take on military significance, we could see a move towards destabilisation of Antarctica as a zone of peace.
For Australia these potential developments are worrying. We’re the largest claimant in Antarctica. Our territorial claim in Antarctica can’t be defended in military terms and doesn’t need to be if Antarctica remains demilitarised.
There’s now a defence posture review under way to examine whether our military is appropriately positioned to respond in a timely way to Australia’s defence and security demands.
Today there is almost no Defence engagement on Antarctic issues. Defence could use one of its four C-17 Globemasters for Antarctic logistics. New Zealand uses its air force to fly personnel to and from Antarctica. Our air force should work with New Zealand into and out of Antarctica to gain polar logistics experience. Defence should be represented on high-level inter-departmental forums on Antarctica.
Military personnel could be included in Antarctic missions for operational support. Short-term secondments by Defence to the Australian Antarctic Division in Tasmania would give our armed forces a greater feel for what might be required if circumstances were to change. None of the new vessels to be acquired by the navy will be ice-capable and Defence has passed responsibility for Southern Ocean patrols to Customs.
Antarctica matters. It’s time our strategic planners looked south.’ .
NOTE: Sam Bateman and Anthony Bergin are co-authors of an Australian Strategic Policy Institute paper, ‘Sea Change: Advancing Australia’s Ocean Interests’.
"We're coming to you from the custodial lands of the Hairygowogulator and Tarantulawollygong, and pay respects to uncle and grandaddy elders past, present and emerging from their burrows. So wise to keep a distance out bush."
Once were common – now pose for the commoner!
1927 ‘Black August’
When 600,000 Koalas were shot and skinned across Queensland
Koala Traditional Natural Range map (excluding Victorian and South Australia)
Koala reduced range map
Australia’s Environment Minister, Tony Burke
Being interviewed on ABC Four Corners 20120821
[Source: ‘Koala Crunch Time’, ABC Four Corners, 20120821,^http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/08/16/3569231.htm]
Koala with joey – zoo captive to benefit tourist visitation
Koalas reduced to patchy populations
Below the IUCN radar/crisis, Koala functional extinction looms
… patchy populations, and more patchy every year.
Do we wait until Koala numbers downgrade to ‘Critically Endangered‘ before the Australian Government gives a toss!
Professor Helen Marsh
TSSC Chair since August 2011
Deborah Tabart OAM
– not smiling
Estimated Australian Koala Population, 2011
.
Koala tokenly listed as ‘Vulnerable’ but politically only at the above ‘selected places’
under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999)
Dead Koalas on a vet’s autopsy table – with all the Green Talk how has it come to this?
Australia’s Sprawl Profit overrules Biodiversity
‘Since 1997, koala hospitals along Australia’s eastern seaboard have recorded 15,000 Koala deaths’
[Source: Koala Crunch Time’, ABC Four Corners,^http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/08/16/3569231.htm]
Westfield Shopping Centre development profiting out of Koala habitat apocalypse
Low (economic) Cost Housing, Coomera, Queensland
Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala)
The International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species,
^http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/16892/0]
Koala injuries from a dog attack
Port Macquarie Koala Hospital
^http://www.koalahospital.org.au/
Koalas face a bleak future
℗ 2012 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
.
.
As is pointed out in the article, the “Koala loss is symptomatic of Australia’s loss of much of the country’s native wildlife, its ecological community and its biodiversity”.
Tragically, in spite of this environmental crisis, we continue to camouflage our destructiveness of the environment with such ineffective solutions as relocation of species, offsetting habitat loss with existing habitat, making roads safe, triple bottom line and balance as an excuse for permitting environmental destruction for individual developments and never taking their cumulative effects of into consideration
Australian Government – too little, too late, too selective
Since the excellent ABC 4 Corners in 2012 how many more koalas have lost their habitat and been destroyed taking our extinction debt to new heights?
In April 2015, as we wait with bated breath for Liberal governments to take environmental protection to new lows by handing federal powers over to economically aggressive states and in NSW to repeal the Native Vegetation Act, the koala represents how helpless other than human species are in the face of worship of the Economy over the Environment. Do governments reflect the people who elect them? If the koala is anything to go by the answer must be the people need a new school curriculum to show them how vulnerable they really are to the interconnected web of life.
If the way the koala is being decimated is how the public understands the human predicament, then something is truly wrong with the education system which needs to teach humans that we are in the end simply entirely dependent on the same things the tiny koala is – a safe and connected habitat.
If we don’t understand this fundamental need for our own survival, then we are on track to destroy ourselves and our own habitat – the planet. The koala is an exemplar of the global problem of biodiversity depletion.
Thank you for this page and the Habitat Advocate website and please give us a tweet option.