by Editor 20100329.

The Editor had been intending to take the following two photographs for some years.

Perhaps self-evident, but the first shows a ‘wildlife crossing’ sign by the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) at the side of a widened busy four lane section of the Great Western Highway on the Boddington Hill climb at Wentworth Falls, Blue Mountains, in Australia.

The second photo shows a two metre provision for wildlife to cross under the barrier in the middle of a one kilometre long continuous concrete median barrier.  This section being on a 80kph downhill bend and typically ignored.

Presumably, the only wildlife crossing would be guaranteed to become ‘road kill’.  This wildlife crossing is greenwash tokenism at its disingenuous best.

This section of the Great Westren Highway traverses a ridgeline through a narrow land zone excluded from listing in the Greater Blue Mountans World Heritage Area, atthis location just 500 metres away.      Another reason why the Blue Mountains while conveying a first impression of wild and protected, is almost devoid of the ground dwelling mammals that were once prolific.

Throughout the Blue Mountains, no wildlife corridor provision exists.  Indeed, local residents have their own disputes with this arrogant state government department to achieve local pedestrian and vehicular crossings of the expressway development, let alone wildlife.  What wildlife?

‘Wildlife Crossing sign’, Boddington Hill

Photo by Editor, 20100327

 

 

 

Actual wildlife crossing provided by the RTA

 

Photo by Editor, 20100327

 

Scientifically Recorded species of the Upper Blue Mountains:

Short-Beaked Echidna   ( Tachyglossus aculeatus )

Tiger Quoll  (Dasyrus maculatus)

Brown Antechinus  ( Antechinus stuartii )

Dusky Antechinus  ( Antechinus swainsonii )

Common Ringtail Possum  ( Pseudocheinus peregrinus )

Common Brushtail Possum ( Trichosurus vulpecula )

Swamp Wallaby ( Wallabia bicolour )

Grey Headed Flying Fox ( Pteropus poliocephalus )

Bush Rat  ( Rattus Fuscipes)

Swamp Rat  (Rattus lutreolus)

Garden Skink (Lampropholis guichenoti)

Blue Mountains Water Skink (Eulamprus leuraensis)

Eastern Water Skink (Eulamprus quoyii)

Blotched Blue Tongue (Tiliqua nigrolutea)

Pink –Tongued Lizard ( Hemisphaeriodon gerardii)

Weasel Skink  ( Saproscencus musteline)

Copperhead ( Austrelaps superbus )

Eastern Brown Snake ( Pseudonaja textiles )

Red – Bellied Black Snake ( Pseudechis porphyriacus)

Common Eastern Froglet  ( Crinia signifera )

Striped Marsh Frog  ( Lymnodynastes peronii )

[Source:  Extract from FAUNA OF THE GULLY, Upper Kedumba River Catchment, Les Peto 2007].

Sightings of these species are so rare these days as to almost, sadly, presume that many have been forced into local extinction by colonist Australians and their descendants and subsequent immigrants.

On 20th December 2010, a local reader sent in the following photographs of the same ‘wildlife crossing’ site where a wallaby had been killed.  Many motorists use the derogatory term ‘roadkill’, but this reader certainly conveyed a higher respect for our wildlife.  The reader contributed the following personal account with the photos:

.

“It shows a swamp wallaby roadkill less than ten metres from the so-called ‘wildlife crossing‘. The carcass has been there for a few days – as a mountains resident you have probably already seen it for yourself.

I too have been wanting to take a photo of the site for the last few years and was prompted to do so after the events of yesterday. I was heading down the highway on my way to work in the morning when I spotted the wallaby on the road. This was the first time in the four years I’ve been living in the mountains that I have seen any significant roadkill at the site, and I felt sickened as I have always considered the wildlife crossing an absolute joke, but now it’s become deadly serious. Further, only two minutes after I saw the wallaby, I came across an injured sulfur-crested cockatoo in the middle of the highway at Bullaburra. After wrapping it up in a jumper, I got my partner to come down from our home in Wentworth Falls to retrieve it, and it subsequently died just before reaching the local WIRES volunteer’s home.

 

Yesterday’s events have inspired me to address the issue of the complete lack of any facilitation of wildlife movement across the highway – a huge barrier separating the northern and southern sections of the mountains. This has led me to your website – and it is heartening to know that there are plenty of others out there who are also disturbed by the status quo. “

.

---

© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

Possibly the last Tasmanian Tigers [Thylacinus cynocephalus]

in Hobart Zoo 1928.

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine

.

Any species (carnivorous or herbivorous) that was perceived as an obstruction to man’s so called “progress” was killed through either direct assault by shooting, trapping and laying poisoned baits, or by simply obliterating its habitat.

The thylacine is a classic victim of greed, false notions, irrational opposition toward native wildlife and apathetic attitudes. Thousands of these magnificent animals were killed by Tasmania’s farming community in a misguided attempt to protect alien livestock such as sheep that didn’t belong on the island in the first place.

When compared to other factors, it is unlikely that many domestic animals were actually taken by thylacines. For example, historical records show that the majority of sheep losses were in reality attributable to thieves and predation by feral domestic dogs. Indeed, loss of stock due to thylacines was probably never substantial enough to be economically significant.

In the case of Tasmania, it was unfortunately the thylacine which became the settlers’ target of blame for agricultural troubles. As has so often been the case, a wild, misunderstood species was accused of “getting in the way of development”.

Presented on the Natural Worlds website “is a gallery of twelve historical photographs which date from the late 18th to early 19th centuries. They are a poignant visual record of one of man’s most hurtful actions toward his marsupial cousins. The scenes depicted in this gallery are highly unpleasant, but they should not be forgotten.

Adult Thylacine with young

© Australian Museum

http://australianmuseum.net.au/image/Adult-Thylacine-with-young/

.

The persecution of the Thylacine is not just a terrible blight on Australian history, but indeed, that of the world at large. Like all species, this animal is a part of the natural heritage of the planet as a whole – the product of millions of years of evolution. Places which still retain populations of other endangered species would be well advised not to let a similar tragedy befall them.” [Source: C. Campbell’s Natural Worlds 2006, www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine]

.

---

.

‘Kumanjayi Tiger’

.

Aboriginal Australians hold a cultural taboo against seeing images of the deceased.

Central Australian Aboriginal peoples have traditionally used the term “Kumanjayi” to precede the name of a deceased person.

Did Australian Aboriginal peoples ever force the extinction of a species? Probably not. So the British word ‘extinction’ may probably not have an equivalent term amongst the Australian Aboriginal languages making up over 400 distinct nations that existed across Australia before the 1788 Australian Invasion.

Colonial Australians, dominated by the British, have forced the extinction of many species endemic to Australia, notably and distressingly, the Tasmanian Tiger. Cameron Campbell on his website www.naturalworlds.org provides a rare collection of historical images of the now extinct Tasmanian Tiger. This extinction is one of the most avoidable in history and so or the more tragic and condemning of colonial Australia’s culture. Campbell’s images and old videos convey a magnificently healthy top order predator fine-tuned through eons of Darwinian evolution to survive and thrive in Tasmania’s harsh wild country.

But colonist culture of the time treated the tiger misguidedly like vermin and so in primitive eyes despised it, hunted it, skinned it and ultimately exterminated it from the planet.

Australia is a unique and special island-continent and out of respect for our country, we should start respecting its natural values and embrace its traditional cultures. All of Australia’s natural fauna and flora are endemic: that is, they exist nowhere else on the planet. So how can we as supreme custodians chose to neglect, exploit and destroy this privileged closenessto such uniqueness?

With our knowledge of the existence values and of the human threats to native species, we must stop in our tracks to save the remaining species and their habitat before they are gone.

This website respects the prominence of local Aboriginal rites and advocates a name change of the Tasmanian Tiger to ‘Kumanjayi Tiger’. Should we be able to see images of it without feeling a strong sense of cultural taboo by actively persecuted to extinction? The tiger lives on now only in myth as Australia’s own proud, vibrant, healthy and uniquely Australian top order species.

If any man admires his dog, this was a magnificently wild native dog like no other.

That we killed it to extinction is an abomination.

.

© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

 

 

(This article was first compiled back on 20100316.  The video by Brent Melton ‘Tarkine: Saving the Last of Gondwana‘ highlights issues and threats that remain highly prevalent):

.

Tarkine Wilderness

(Photo by Des Houghton)

.

The Tarkine in north-west Tasmania contains Australia’s largest tract of temperate rainforest, and is home to more than 60 species of rare, threatened and endangered species.These include such unique animals as the Giant Freshwater Lobster – the world’s largest freshwater crustacean, and the Tasmanian Wedge Tailed Eagle – Australia’s largest Eagle, and the famous Tasmanian Devil.

However, the Tasmanian Labor Government has plans to construct a new tourist road through over 5 kilometres pristine rainforest for tourism development. The Greens want the Tarkine made a national park or world heritage wilderness area..

On 16-Mar-2010 Director Brent Melton released the free webcast video ‘Tarkine: Saving the Last of Gondwana‘ :

.

Video Source:  ^http://photopia.me/index.php/client-downloads/cat_view/15-downloads.html

.

---

.

‘Tarkine Emergency National Heritage Listing’

.

[Source:   Tarkine National Coalition:    ^http://www.tarkine.org/]

.

‘Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, has used emergency provisions under national environment law to include the Tarkine in the National Heritage List. This is a significant milestone in the campaign to protect the Tarkine, and now ensures that the Tarkine Road and any future developments will now have to be assessed against the National Heritage Listing. The boundary of the 447,000 hectare listing follows the boundary for the proposed Tarkine National Park. The fight goes on. The Tarkine Road still is not defeated, and the long term aim of a Tarkine National Park and World Heritage Area will require us to continue the campaign to ensure protection of this special place.’

.

---

.

‘Tarkine Road referred to Commonwealth’

.

‘The $23million Forestry Tasmania Tarkine Road has been referred to the Commonwealth for Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act assessment. This project will intorduce the fatal Devil facial tumor disease to this last refuge of isolated healthy Tasmanian devils.The project is critically non-compliant, and is clearly unacceptable.’

‘Forestry Tasmania’s “Tarkine Drive”- A proposal to bulldoze a new road through the heart of the Tarkine rainforest.’

.

---

.

‘Tasmanian Government Lodges its Tarkine Road Project with the Commonwealth’

.

The Tasmanian Government has lodged the Tarkine Road project with the Commonwealth for Assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

“Impact on the Tasmanian devil is considered to be potentially significant for the following reasons:

1. There is considerable potential for increased roadkill rates following completion of the road.
2. Animals with large movement ranges, low reproductive rates and low natural densities (such as devils) tend to be negatively affected by roads and traffic (Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009).
3. The increase in Arthur River crossing sites may lead to the spread of DFTD into new areas south of the Arthur River. “

– Excerpt from the Tasmanian Government’s Tarkine Road EPBC referral lodged 28 October 2009.

.

‘The public comment period has now closed.’

‘The Tasmanian government’s logging agency, Forestry Tasmania, has recently produced a proposal to carve a road right through the pristine rainforest in the heart of the Tarkine.’

‘The proposed road is clearly destructive from an environmental point of view – as, in its current form, it would involve bulldozing over twenty kilometres of new road into remote, virgin rainforest. It would also dramatically increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire, invasion from weeds and feral species, along with exacerbating myrtle wilt disease in the heart of the Tarkine Rainforest.’

‘It will also compromise the last wild refuge of disease free Tasmanian devils – a move described by scientists as condemning the Devil to exctintion in the wild. Even the government’s own report aknowledges that the road will likely introduce the facial tumor disease into this isolated healthy population.’

‘The proposal also diverts $23 million of the Tasmanian government’s money away from a strategic tourism plan for the Tarkine region towards this road proposal. The road will aim to ‘capture’ all of the tourists visiting the Tarkine region, divert them away from ugly logging operations, and direct them on a sanitised Forestry Tasmania controlled drive channelling visitors to Forestry Tasmania’s failing ‘Dismal swamp’ visitor centre. In doing so, – this road proposal would involve bulldozing several sections of road through pristine rainforest, including in globally significant rainforest reserves in the heart of the Tarkine.’

‘It is critically important that a strategic rather than piecemeal approach to public investment in the Tarkine is taken. It is also critically important that government puts public money towards infrastructure and projects that don’t harm the environment, are good value for money, and deliver benefits to the broader community. The Tarkine already has hundreds of kilometres of sealed and unsealed roads, extensive infrastructure, and extensive accessibility for tourists to world-class natural attractions. It already has several accessible and popular ‘loop’ roads showcasing its extraordinary values. However, it doesn’t have the basic signage, promotion, visitor entry points and other basic tourist infrastructure needed to really help put the region on the map.’

‘When weighed up against the dozens of exciting projects in the Tarkine region that could and should be funded – along with the desperate need for development of the most basic infrastructure such as visitor signs and entry points to the Tarkine – this would be a very poor way for government to spend taxpayers’ dollars.’

Reference Documents

Originally available at the Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts:  http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=5169

.

---

.

‘Tasmanian Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources  – Proposed Tarkine Tourist Drive’

.

Source:  Tasmanian Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources, Originally available at: ^http://dierp.dot.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/45404/DIER_Tarkine_Tourist_Drive_Overview.pdf

.

[Read Tarkine Road Proposal]

.

---

.

‘Tarkine road plan sparks tourism row’

.

[Source:    ABC Northern Tasmania, 20090524,  ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/24/2579226.htm?site=northtas]

.

A Tarkine wilderness lobby group has called for reform of Forestry Tasmania and questioned the agency’s role in running tourism ventures.

Concerns about the State Government’s plan to build a $23 million tourist road through the Tarkine, in the north-west, were raised at a forum in Wynyard yesterday.

The project is expected to create 600 jobs and inject $70 million a year into the north-west economy.

But there is concern the project could impact on the Tasmanian devil and jeopardise tourism by tarnishing the Tarkine’s wilderness brand.

The Tarkine National Coalition’s spokesman Phil Pullinger says some of the $23 million should be going to local tourism ventures rather than Forestry Tasmania to build the road.

“We’ve got these tourism operators that are completely having to sink or swim on their own merits and we’ve got a government agency, which is supposed to be returning money to the taxpayer, swallowing up all of the public money,” he said.

“That is a real problem and that is what we need clear reform on.”

Forestry Tasmania’s Ken Jeffreys says it would not gain from building the road.

“Forestry Tasmania will not make a brass razoo out of this $23 million Tarkine drive, in fact it will lose access to some 650 hectares of forest that would otherwise be available for harvesting, so this is really a community service by Forestry Tasmania,” he said.

Both Opposition parties are urging the government to drop the plan.

The Greens want the Tarkine made a national park or world heritage wilderness area.’

.

---

.

 

.

‘The Federal Government last night confirmed that it had still not received any referral for the proposed Tarkine Road from Forestry Tasmania or the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources.

Greens Deputy Leader, Christine Milne says the delayed referral shows the Bartlett government is worried that a tick from the Environment Minister will be felt in poling booths at the upcoming state elections.

“It seems that Premier Bartlett is keen to delay the referral so that consideration is squashed into the Christmas, New Year holiday season in the hope that people are so distracted that they will miss the 10 day period for public consultation.”

Senator Milne called on the federal environment minister, Peter Garrett, to reject the road immediately upon receiving the application as he did with for the proposed coal port at Shoalwater Bay.

“The Tasmanian Devil is on the road to extinction and Premier Bartlett’s Tarkine vandalism will see the process accelerated. This is a test of Minister Garrett’s commitment to the protection of biodiversity and Australian species.”

“With Premier Bartlett speaking at the Press Club today he should explain to the nation’s journalist’s why he is intent on wasting $23m of tax payer’s money and risk sending the Tasmanian Devil further along the road to extinction all to support a logging industry extravaganza. Hardly clean and green Mr Bartlett.”

.

Victorian Government’s VicForests is attempting to log old growth forests at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland, despite Brown Mountain being confirmed habitat for threatened and vulnerable wildlife. Local not-for-profit environment group Environment East Gippsland has commenced proceedings against VicForests in the Supreme Court of Victoria asking the Court for a permanent injunction to stop VicForests from logging Brown Mountain. 

.

Reports:

(most recent at top)

 

‘The Brown Mountain landmark trial has concluded in the Supreme Court on Thursday 25th March – after a 16 day trial.’

© Environment East Gippsland 2010 ^ http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/

East Gippsland residents  outside Victorian State Parliament in early 2010

protesting against the Victorian Government’s immoral and illegal logging and scorched earthing

of old growth forests of Brown Mountain in East Gippsland Victoria, Australia.

.

The photos show a Greater Glider [Petauroides volans].  The Greater Glider is strictly nocturnal, and largely solitary, arboreal species of undisturbed eucalypt-dominated woodland habitats.  It is endemic to south eastern Australian forests including Brown Mountain and  its population is decreasing largely due to land clearing for agriculture, logging, and bushfires.

[Source:   Environment East Gippsland,  20100327, ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/]

.

‘Justice Osborn has reserved his decision. It could take anywhere from one month to six months to hand down a finding, but of course we are hoping sooner.

The four week trial has been marked by finger-pointing between government logging bodies VicForests and DSE about who is responsible for endangered species. The behavior of those charged with protecting our wildlife has been exposed to public scrutiny and the Supreme Court’s enquiry.

We believe the government doesn’t survey for endangered wildlife before they log old growth forest, because they don’t want to find anything that would prevent logging. The Court heard that VicForests doesn’t employ wildlife experts, and EEG has argued that both VicForests and the DSE sideline the opinion of the government’s biodiversity unit.  We now hope the Minister is fully informed about the very high conservation values in this area.

EEG presented evidence of a new species of crayfish in Brown Mountain Creek, plus experts claiming the stands of old growth are high quality habitat for two species of rare frogs, and the Spotted-tailed Quoll. The evidence for the Spotted-tailed Quoll was heart-breaking – the three last remaining viable colonies are in East Gippsland.

This case has been all about whether irreversible damage would be caused by logging. And as our legal team stated:

“You can’t get damage that is more irreversible than extinction.”

The outcome of this case is important for the protection of wildlife in other stands of high conservation value native forests under threat of clearfelling.’

.

---

.

‘The Brown Mountain landmark trial has begun!’

[Source:  Environment East Gippsland, 20100315, ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/]

.

‘After months of preparation, our legal team and supporters have gathered in Sale and begun the two-week Brown Mountain landmark trial.

Everything is going very well so far. It’s difficult to report on a hearing that is in progress, particularly since we are the plaintiff, so this article might lack a few things.

Our lead barrister, Debbie Mortimer SC, spent Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning in Court outlining what we say are the facts and the law, in a fascinating opening submission.

She spoke about the beautiful native wildlife that is central to our case, and the Court was treated to large pictures of the critters. It was almost surreal, but quite appropriate in our view, to see a team of lawyers in black gowns and wigs defending the furry, the feathered, the cray and the frog.

She said that VicForests has a number of legal responsibilities towards the environment, including endangered species, and that those responsibilities are inconsistent with logging at Brown Mountain.

For a more detailed summary of the first day’s hearing, read this excellent article by The Age journalist Kate Hagen, who is attending the hearing Click here Journalists from ABC Radio and Win TV (channel 9) are also attending the hearings.

VicForests’ lead barrister Ian Waller SC started outlining VicForests’ case this afternoon. When Court adjourned today, he said he still had about an hour to go, so we haven’t got the full picture yet.

But generally speaking he contended that VicForests’ responsibility to the environment wasn’t anywhere near as strong as we made out, and was balanced by its requirement to create economic and social benefits. He said that, to the extent to which VicForests has responsibilities to the environment and native wildlife, it has fulfilled them.

Today (Wednesday), Justice Osborn and the legal teams are having a look at Brown Mountain first hand. It’s not just a bushwalk, though; they will observe first hand some places and concepts about forests, logging and post-logging practices that will later on be discussed in Court.

On Thursday morning, VicForests’ opening submissions will finish, then Environment East Gippsland will bring out our witnesses.’

 

---

.

Fate of native Forest Hangs on ‘David v Goliath’ Court Case

Source:  Environment East Gippsland, (EEG), 20100301,   ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/

.

Environment East Gippsland Inc (EEG) v Vic Forests Brown Mountain Court Case, Sale, Monday, March 1

‘The fate of a native forest with trees dating back to Joan of Arc’s time is at stake in a Supreme Court case to be heard at the Victorian centre of Sale from Monday (March 1).

‘The landmark Brown Mountain case has national implications for all native forests in Australia and major political implications, with the green vote likely to be vital for both State and Federal Labor Governments in an election year – which is also the UN’s Year of Biodiversity.

‘In a David and Goliath battle, Environment East Gippsland (EEG) is seeking to stop state-owned logging monopoly VicForests from clear-felling Brown Mountain, a rich and ancient forest which is “chockablock” with threatened and endangered species.

‘The action marks the first time a Victorian court has been asked to grant a permanent injunction against state-sanctioned logging. It will also raise the fundamental conflict in Australia’s Regional Forest Agreement – where the State Government charged with protecting the forests is also the logger.

‘That was underlined in Victoria last year when Environment Minister Gavin Jennings gave the go-ahead to logging at Brown Mountain, declaring there were no threatened species in there. That very morning an EEG camera captured footage at Brown Mountain of a Long-footed Potoroo, one of Victoria’s most endangered species.

‘In the absence of government protection, EEG was forced to take legal action to defend the forest – an enormous and costly step for a community group.

‘In an Australian first, EEG last year won a temporary injunction on logging at Brown Mountain, ahead of the full hearing, with Supreme Court Justice Forrest comparing images from the forest to the WW1 battlefields of the Somme.  But even if successful with their action, conservationists anticipate the Victorian Government may favour the logging industry and over-ride the court’s decision as has happened in previous high-profile cases in both Victoria and Tasmania.’

.

---

.

Brown Mountain Background

Source:  Environment East Gippsland  ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/

.

‘Brown Mountain, in East Gippsland in Victoria, contains old growth forest with ancient trees, one carbon-dated to 600 years old. It is prime habitat for threatened species including the Long-footed Potoroo, Spot-tailed Quoll, Sooty Owl, the Large Brown Tree Frog, the Square-tailed Kite, and the Giant Burrowing Frog. It is also a hotspot for arboreal mammals, like the Greater Glider and the Yellow-bellied glider.

‘Environment East Gippsland (EEG) alleges that logging four coupes on Brown Mountain is unlawful because it breaches provisions to protect endangered and threatened species in the Victorian Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. In particular EEG says that VicForests has failed to comply with the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007.

‘In the 2006 election, the Bracks Labor Government promised to protect “the last significant stands of old growth currently available for logging”. Brown Mountain should clearly have been included but, instead, 20 hectares were logged in summer 2008-09. Threatened species surveys triggered a moratorium in February 2009 followed by more surveys over winter and spring and, in August 2009, an EEG survey camera recorded the presence of a Long-footed Potoroo, one of Victoria’s most endangered species, despite the government’s declaration – earlier that same day- that there were NO threatened species at Brown Mountain.

‘In September 2009, EEG successfully obtained an interim injunction against VicForests to prevent logging in the coupes. In granting the injunction, Justice Forrest likened photographs of logging to ‘pictures of the battlefields of the Somme’.

‘Already the case has delivered important precedents:

• The Supreme Court refused VicForests’ application for up to $163,000 in security from EEG before a court injunction was granted to stop logging on Brown Mountain. Having to pay such a large sum would have stopped the community group being able to challenge critical habitat logging.
• The interim injunction, granted late last year, was also a groundbreaking decision because no Victorian court has ever ordered an injunction on logging before.

‘However there are concerns that the Victorian Government could override a logging ban, if the EEG case is successful.

‘Greens Leader Bob Brown successfully brought a court case to halt logging at the Wielangta forest in Tasmania because it threatened the endangered Swift Parrot, Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle and Wielangta Stag Beetle. Then Prime Minister John Howard and Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon amended the Regional Forest Agreement to permit logging to continue.

‘In 1998, logging at Goolengook in far eastern Victoria, the site of Australia’s longest running forest blockade from 1997 to 2002, was found to be unlawful because it was within a protected area next to a Heritage River. The Victorian government changed the law retrospectively to make the logging legal.’

.

---

.

Member’s Statement: VicForests – Brown Mountain old growth forest

SOURCE:  Victorian Greens, 20090402, ^http://mps.vic.greens.org.au/node/1057

‘Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — The Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory at the University of Waikato in New Zealand has confirmed that a tree cut down by VicForests in the Brown Mountain old-growth forest was between 550 and 600 years old. Until now foresters have claimed that these large trees were between 200 and 250 years old. Others have assumed that between 300 and 400 years would be the age limit before the trees succumb to rot. The tree was young when Joan of Arc lived and Christopher Columbus discovered America. It measured 11 metres around the stump close to the ground. Other trees on Brown Mountain have girths of 12 metres and more and could between 700 and 800 years old. They would have been mature when Marco Polo travelled the world. These trees are ancient relics and part of our precious national heritage.

‘VicForests and the Brumby government cannot replace these trees once they are cut down. They are logged on a 50-to-80-year rotation. It would take until 2600 AD for a tree to grow to the same size.

In 2006 Premier Brumby promised to protect the last significant stands of old-growth forests. Since then hundreds of hectares of these ancient forests have been cut down. It is not good enough for the government to claim that VicForests is independent and that the government can do nothing to save Brown Mountain. The government must act now to protect all remaining old growth forests in East Gippsland.’

.

---

.

Brown Mountain to stay green – for now

SOURCE:   The Wilderness Society,  http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/brown-mountain-to-stay-green-2013-for-now

.

‘Brown Mountain, in Victoria’s East Gippsland, is home to magnificent old-growth trees as well as endangered species like the Orbost spiny crayfish and the Long-footed potoroo.

‘One of the giant Brown Mountain trees that will hopefully be saved by the Supreme Court Injunction.

(Photo: Luke Chamberlain)

.

‘But despite previous promises from the Victorian government to protect the last significant stands of old-growth forests in the state, Brown Mountain still has no protection against logging by VicForests.

‘Early in 2009, things were looking dire.  Ignoring community outrage, VicForests’ bulldozers continued to destroy trees as old as 500 years.

‘Supported by the Wilderness Society, along with many concerned residents, volunteers and other concerned Victorians, Environment East Gippsland brought a last-minute court injunction against the logging at Brown Mountain.

‘Environment East Gippsland is Victoria’s longest running community forest group working solely for the protection of Victoria’s last and largest area of ancient forest in the state. Environment East Gippsland drew a line in the sand, and submitted for a court injunction to halt the logging.’VicForests, the Victorian Government’s commercial logging agency, stood up in court and argued for logging to begin as soon as possible.

Incredibly, VicForests said that it is not their responsibility, nor is it possible for them to comply with endangered species legislation!

‘Supreme Court judge Justice Jack Forrest commented on photographs showing the ”apparent total obliteration” of an old-growth logging coupe in Brown Mountain and subsequent burning off, saying they reminded him of the battlefields of the Somme.

”To put it bluntly, once the logging is carried out and the native habitat destroyed, then it cannot be reinstated or repaired in anything but the very, very long term,” he said.’

An injunction against logging was granted just in time. But an expensive trial over the issue will be heard in March. The Brown Mountain forests will need all the help they can get.

---

.

Minister ‘on two fronts’ in forest

SOURCE:    Kate Hagan, The Age, 20100303, ^http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/minister-on-two-fronts-in-forest-20100302-pgg1.html

.

‘Environment Minister Gavin Jennings moved to protect significant areas of old-growth forest in East Gippsland at the same time as releasing some of it for logging, a court has heard.

‘Ian Waller, SC, for the state government’s commercial timber agency VicForests, said the minister announced new parks and reserves in the vicinity of Brown Mountain last year along with other measures to protect threatened species in the area.   ‘They included a 100-metre buffer zone around Brown Mountain Creek and the retention per hectare of at least five hollow-bearing trees, which are important for habitat and breeding, where they were present in sufficient numbers.

‘VicForests is defending itself against a claim by Environment East Gippsland that logging of about 60 hectares at Brown Mountain would breach legislation aimed at protecting endangered and threatened species.

In an opening address yesterday to the Supreme Court sitting at Sale, Mr Waller said much of the newly protected area had never been logged, despite claims to the contrary by the environment group.  ‘He said VicForests was meeting its obligations under various pieces of legislation and took a great deal of care in preparing its timber release plans, which had to be approved by the secretary of the Department of Environment and Sustainability (DSE) before logging could occur.

“‘It is not a random exercise by which areas of forest are deemed suitable for harvesting and only then checked for difficulties,” Mr Waller said. ”The entire process from beginning to end is one of checks and balances, where precautions are observed in identifying areas to be harvested as well as the manner in which harvesting is to occur.”

Mr Waller said it was the DSE, and not VicForests, that had the power and responsibility to create special protection zones where they were warranted. He said that logging might not pose a risk to the long-footed potoroo, listed as endangered by the federal government, because surveys after logging showed prevalence of the species had increased.   Mr Waller said there was evidence that factors other than logging were threatening spot-tailed quolls, since the species was not secure even in areas of plentiful habitat.   He said the guaranteed survival and flourishing of flora and fauna, as specified in legislation, was an ”aspirational goal” rather than an enforceable requirement. ”If a complete and utter guarantee had to be enforced in all respects it may be that harvesting would cease absolutely,” he said. ”Yet it is obvious the regime is to promote and allow harvesting.”

The trial is due to continue before Justice Robert Osborn, who today will view the contested site.’

.

---

.

Logging ‘a threat to wildlife’

Source: Kate Hagan, The Age, 20100302, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/logging-a-threat-to-wildlife-20100301-pdlh.html

 

‘STATE-SANCTIONED logging of old-growth forest in East Gippsland poses a risk to threatened and endangered species and is at odds with the government’s own legislation, an environment group has said.

 

Environment East Gippsland is suing VicForests, the government agency responsible for logging in state forests, over plans to log about 60 hectares at Brown Mountain, which greens and the timber industry see as a symbolic battleground.

 

The group won an injunction last year preventing logging in the area before the trial, which began in the Supreme Court sitting at Sale yesterday.

The group acted after Environment Minister Gavin Jennings lifted a seven-month moratorium on logging at Brown Mountain, saying government scientists had found no evidence of endangered species there.    But in an opening address yesterday, Debbie Mortimer, SC, for Environment East Gippsland, said VicForests relied on ”desktop planning”, using often outdated records that were at odds with evidence from field experts on the ground.

She listed nine species in the area that were recognised as being ”in a demonstrable state of decline” and prone to extinction, including the square-tailed kite, powerful owl, spot-tailed quoll and giant burrowing frog.

 

She said the long-footed potoroo, which the federal government listed as an endangered species, was particularly vulnerable.

”To an outsider it’s tempting to characterise this as a case about trees and whether they should be cut down,” Ms Mortimer said. ”In our submission that is to see this forest only as a kind of farm … for the purpose of harvesting trees.

 

”Our case is to see it as an ecosystem that grows and decays on its own cycles. Flora and fauna depend on it. It is complex and not fully understood.”

Ms Mortimer said logging in Brown Mountain was incompatible with a ”suite of legislation” enacted in Victoria aimed at protecting and conserving biodiversity.

 

She said the legislation was ”not intended to turn tracts of forests into islands where isolated populations of species inevitably lack biodiversity and the optimal breeding conditions and habitat range to recover and flourish.

 

”We do not dispute that native forest logging involves very different, frequently competing interests. What we seek to demonstrate is that logging of old-growth forests inhabited by many threatened species … under the present administration by VicForests favours logging in a way that the legislative and regulatory scheme does not envisage or allow.”    She said forests were a ”community resource” that belonged to all Victorians.

 

The case before Justice Robert Osborn is due to continue today, when lawyers for VicForests are due to respond. ‘

 

---

.

‘Old-growth trees logged at Brown Mountain over 500 years old’

Source:  The Wilderness Society, 20100301, ^http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/old-growth-trees-logged-at-brown-mountain-over-500-years-old

.

‘The Brumby government’s 2006 policy to protect old-growth forests in East Gippsland has been put to shame by VicForests who has been caught out logging trees over 500 years old.

In a state first, radiocarbon dating has confirmed that a tree logged and killed at Brown Mountain began growing before Christopher Columbus ‘discovered’ the Americas. The carbon sample shows that there is a 68% chance that the tree started growing between 1435 and 1490 AD, and it is believed that there are even older trees being logged.

In 2006, the ALP state government promised to protect the last significant stands of old growth forests.  In a move that can only be described as environmental and political vandalism, VicForests sent the bulldozers into the first of three logging coupes at Brown Mountain in October last year.

Recent flora and fauna surveys have revealed that Brown Mountain is extremely rich in arobreal species and contains endangered species such as the Orbost Spiny Crayfish and the Long-footed Potoroo.

However, VicForests continues to ignore community calls to end the logging at Brown Mountain and has refused to remove two more coupes planned to be logged any day now.

VicForests must be reigned in from destroying East Gippsland’s last remaining unprotected old-growth forests.’

.

by Editor 20100318.

A fresh Tasmanian perspective

——————————————————————————-

‘wildtasmania.org‘ is the inception of ideas for a new think tank website dedicated to the ‘sustainable prosperity‘ of Tasmania, its wildlife habitat and its people.

The domain has been registered and our concept approach for the site is still work in progress being drafted here at The Habitat Advocate at the following page:

>Wild Tasmania

We welcome constructive comments.

Please direct correspondence to:

Editor
The Habitat Advocate
Email: ^ info@habitatadvocate.com.au
Post:    PO Box 21 Katoomba, Blue Mountains (bioregion) 2780  Australia.

---

© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

by Editor 20091216.

Cann River Fire started by VicForests

———————————————————————————

The Reported Fire Facts

On Wednesday 16th December 2009, during peak summer on a day of high fire danger, a VicForest logging operation started a fire near Cann River in East Gippsland, which got out of control (again) and this time burnt over 7000 hectares [3/4 the size of Phillip Island].

The story goes that logging machinery was responsible while carrying out ‘thinning’ operations.   The burn got out of control and threatened the town of Cann River (pop.230).

The temperatures at the time stretched into the 30s.  The fire has since destroyed over 7000 hectares of East Gippsland forest habitat (which firies demonise as ‘fuel’).  The firefighting response involved over 150 firefighters and over 40km of bulldozed control lines.  It took over a week to control.

But the fire was not extinguished and blew up into a bushfire again on a day of TOTAL FIRE BAN on 12th January 2010.

Out of Control Again

The same fire “jumped containment lines” grew in size and threatened the town of Cann River and the hamlet of Tonghi Creek (5km east along the Princes Highway) plus numerous holidaying campers in the area. The new blaze was an outbreak from the larger fire that started at Cann River about a month prior.

Fire Fighting Performance

The DSE standard excuse is that the fire was “burning in dense, inaccessible forest” and standard firie practice is “to let it burn itself out.”  Of course this assumes the wind won’t pick up and rain will do the firies job for them.  At the same time the DSE will contradict itself saying “it’s the sort of country that burns very, very quickly and with the (wind) change heading towards it, that can be unpredictable fire behaviour that we have to deal with.’’  So clearly, the DSE policy of letting a remote fire burn itself out is recklessly irresponsible.  Time and again such negligence leads to flare ups.

Low and behold the wind did pick up, the fire jumped containment lines and spot-fires stared forming 200 metres ahead of the fire front.  The bushfire grew “rapidly from 5 hectares to about 60 hectares” and with wind changes stoking it got “out of control.”  Multiple roads including the Princes and Monaro Highways were closed.

So the firie reaction ramped up again – “two dozen fire trucks had joined three water bombers, three helicopters and a heavy-duty helicopter from Melbourne in fighting the fire.  Eight CFA strike teams and six aircraft had been dispatched to the fire and DSE fire crews were in there too.”  Over 170 DSE tankers fought the blaze.

Total Cost of Fire Accountability

As to the Total Fire Cost, including forest loss, economic losses including the consequential transport costs of closing Highway 1, and businesses in Cann River being forced to close.  As usual will not be measured.  VicForests won’t accept responsibility, let alone compensate.  Even if it was it would remain a state secret since it would show up the failings of Victorian fragmented firefighting.

Then they have the cheek to demand residents have a bushfire survival plan.  Residents need to be vigilant against forest arsonists operating in the area and then mindful that the emergency response will be half-hearted, so they better be super ready to evacuate if there is fire anywhere within 50km.

Fire Investigation

What investigation?  The DSE with the Victorian Police conducted an investigation but no information has been published.

So, unsupervised, VicForests is causing 2nd degree bush arson and getting away with it.  VicForests is not only a reckless environmental vandal; it is a State-sanction arsonist.

Questions:

Will the logging contractor or VicForests have to pay for the firefighting efforts and costs?

Will VicForests pay compensation for the loss of tourism to the area during these weeks?

Take Home Message:

It is time the Victorians community demanded Brumby hold his three stooges VicForests, DSE and CFA criminally and financially accountable for all prescribed burns and abandoned bushfires.

Fuel reduction is a firie myth.  It encourages dense regeneration of highly flammable vegetation which only exacerbates future fuel loads. It’s like mowing grass.  Once you start, you have to mow for life.   Bushphobia is a defeatist response to under-resourced firies throwing their hands in the air and saying we can’t cope, so burn it before it burns.

Prescribed burning and uncontrolled bushfires have become the greatest cause of native flora and faunal extinctions and possibly the greatest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions across the state.

Recommendations:

The buck stops with Victorian Premier John Brumby.

• Brumby needs to hold VicForests accountable for the consequences of prescribed burning getting out of control.

• Brumby needs to recognise the grossly inadequate capacity of DSE and CFA to detect, respond to and suppress bushfires especially remote ones in difficult terrain and that at times the CFA now deems of ‘catastrophic’ risk the CFA considers itself almost a useless force.

• Brumby needs to recognise that bushfire management requires respecting Victoria’s forests as rare and vital natural assets, not as fuel to be burnt before it burns.

• Brumby needs to legislate to prevent further housing approvals in bushfire flame zones and to introduce building standards that enable dwellings to be defendable in bushfire emergencies.

Reckless Fire History of Gippsland:

 

In early and mid-November 2009, prescribed burns by VicForests in East Gippsland escaped including one 2km west of Mallacoota and another left to burn months before (from still-burning underground peat from an autumn burn) around the Conran area.

When contained, the fires had burnt out several thousand hectares.

“On 1 December 2006, over 70 fires were caused by lightning strikes in the Victorian Alps, many of which eventually merged to become the Great Divide Fire Complex, which burned from December 2006 to February 2007 (69 days) across approximately 1 million hectares. Fifty-one houses were ultimately lost in the fires. One man died in a vehicle accident while assisting a property owner to prepare for fire impact.

By the 7th February, lasting 69 days and having merged to burn a total of 1,154,828 hectares [6 Port Phillip Bays].  The bushfires were the longest in Victoria’s history.  More than 1,400 firefighters had been injured (including bruises, cuts, blisters, burns, dehydration, broken limbs and spider bites). More than 400 St John Ambulance volunteers, including doctors, nurses and first aid officers provided first aid. On 16 December, eleven New Zealand firefighters were injured while fighting the fire in the Howqua Valley in north-east Victoria.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-07_Australian_bushfire_season

Reported lightning strikes across north and east Gippsland and over the Great Dividing Range into NSW in early January 2003 were allowed to burn to 7^th March (two months) and wiped out over 1.12 million hectares of parks and forests (this figure includes the large number of lightning-caused fires that were contained in the first weeks of January) and destroying around 75,000 hectares of farmland, 41 houses, 200 other buildings.

On 31 January 1983 (Ash Wednesday), a fire starting at Cann River eventually burnt out 120,000ha to the north and west of the river.  It wasn’t brought under control until 12th February.   Then on 4th March, a second fire started, escaping from the first fire, and burnt a further 140,000 ha, and threatened the town of Mallacoota. It wasn’t controlled until 12th March.  So a quarter of a million hectares [or 2600km2] of forest burnt.   Port Phillip Bay is 1930 km2, to give a sense of scale.

Fires that burnt around Gippsland’s Mitchell River in 1965 wiped out the local population of Yellow Bellied Gliders;

References:

1.       AAP (via The Age) , 19-Dec-09, ‘Fire crews battle Cann River blaze’,

2.       Herald-Sun, Anthony Dowsley, Stephen McMahon,18-Dec-09, ‘Rain & gallant firefighters save Cann River’

3.       EMA Disasters Database – Country Fire Authority Victoria, Publication/Report – Fires of the Past by Andrea Carson.

4.       Fairfax Media (vie the Age), 12 Jan 10, Darren Gray, ‘New Cann River fire ‘out of control’

5.       DSE website – ‘Fire season 2002 – 2003’

6.       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-07_Australian_bushfire_season

---

© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

by  Editor 20091217.

This website’s focus:  ‘a voice for native habitat’

————————————————————————————

Fresh stump of a 500 year old-growth Eucalytus regnans,
killed by John Brumby’s VicForests at Brown Mountain, East Gippsland.
© 2009 Environment East Gippsland

Native Habitat

The term ‘native habitat’ can be described as an ‘ecosystem’ – the biological and physical components of a natural environment.This website focuses on the ecology of flora and fauna and regards an ecosystem as the natural home or ‘habitat’ of flora and fauna. Native habitat is an holistic ‘natural home, natural life’ view of nature.We take fauna-centric and flora-centric views of the natural landscape, not an anthropocentric (human needs) view.

The intended direction of this website is to raise public awareness about the values of native habitat, about the degradation and loss of native habitat and about its scarcity value.Industrial-scale exploitation has reduced much of the world’s native habitat to remnant islands.

We challenge land management policies and practises that are inconsistent with custodial respect for the health, integrity and existence rights of native habitat.We challenge the many human threats that continue to destroy remnant native habitat and which collectively are accelerating local extinctions.

Flora and fauna cannot speak, do not have relocation choices like humans, cannot protest their plight, cannot lobby politicians, and cannot stop the bulldozers.

Once they’ve gone, they’ve gone forever. 

The Habitat Advocate is an advocacy for wildlife and habitat conservation, for better applied ecology and for changing harmful destructive human cultures.
The Habitat Advocate is a voice for native habitat. This is our creed and our motto.

Bonnie Doon Reserve, Katoomba, Blue Mountains, Australia,

threatened by State-sanctioned arson, propagandised as ‘hazard reduction’

by the New South Wales Rural Fire Service

[Photo 6-Dec-08]

Habitat Philosophies

These terms shall be elaborated upon and explored during the development of this website endeavour…

 

·         A voice for native habitat

·         Embracing Complexity

·         Ecocentric Ethics

·         Species Justice

·         Human Pathogen

·         Anti-destructionism

·         Habitat Sovereignty

·         Deep Ecology

·         Socio-Ecology

·         Wholeness Principle

·         Fresh Learning

·         Sustainable Prosperity

·         Fostering Knowledge Exchange

·         Local Community Partnering

·         Independent Citizen Journalism

·         Custodial Humility

---

© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

 

“The Bell Report” dated June 1993 was the first professionally academic study and report (environmental and archaeological) into Katoomba Falls Creek Valley, which subsequently is referred to as ‘The Gully’ by former residents and their descendants, of whom we greatly respect.   

The Bell Report’s correct title is ‘Katoomba Falls Creek Valley Environmental Study‘ and was published in printed form as an A4 sized spiral binder of some 87 pages in length and in budget black and white.   

This landmark environmental study included the first Environmental Management Plan outline for the Valley/Gully based upon the findings of the detailed study.    The ground-based/evidence-based field study was undertaken over twelve weeks in 1992 by qualified and experienced environmental consultants F. & J. Bell & Associates Pty Ltd who was based in the Sydney suburb of Sutherland.  The principal consultant was the late Dr Fred Bell BSc MSc PhD MEIA (1932-2009).    [Ed: MEIA stood for Member of the Environment Institute of Australia, which was subsequently renamed to the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ).  More info: ^https://www.eianz.org/]

Dr Fred Bell sadly passed away in 2009.  More about Fred can be garnered by an obituary article written in The Sydney Morning Herald of that year – refer to our ‘Further Reading‘ appendix at the end of this article.

This first study into The Gully by Dr Fred Bell was commissioned by local Katoomba-based environmental activist group ‘The Friends of Katoomba Falls Creek Valley Inc.’ (‘The Friends’).  It was thanks to this local resident group of Katoomba successfully applying for a $10,000 NSW Government grant for this landmark environmental study to be undertaken.  Members of The Friends subsequently referred to this report affectionately just as ‘The Bell Report‘ after its lead author Dr Fred Bell.  Further details are explained on Page i of the Executive Summary.

Assisting Dr Fred Bell received considerable field and investigative research contribution in this study specific to the local Aboriginal archaeological connection to The Gully by anthropologist Dr Val Attenbrow BA (Hons), PhD, who compiled Section 14 in Part 2 of this study.  However, given the sensitive nature of that research which we hold we consider it prudent not to publish this or Part 2 of the study on this website. 

Dr Fred Bell was known to ‘The Friends’ founder and leader, the late Neil Stuart BSc. (1937-2016), both environmental science graduates from The University of Sydney during the 1960s, who perhaps knew each other prior. Neil lived on the edge of the valley/The Gully.

For the benefit of the local community in and around The Gully catchment, we herein reproduce only Part 1 of this report of this study in its 87 page entirety, section by section.  In the context of the many studies and reports into The Gully, this Bell Report was the eighth such plan/report.  We replicate it below on this website in the public domain under Creative Commons copyright license type ‘Attribution-Non-Commercial’  [CC BY-NC].  This means that anyone is free to download it and print it and use it for non-commercial purposes in the interests of the natural rehabilitation of The Gully in Katoomba. 

[SOURCE:  ^https://creativecommons.org/licenses/]

 

The Bell Report of 1993  (Part 1)

 

0.  Executive Summary, >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Gully-Report-8-1993-Ch-0-of-10-Executive-Summary.pdf

 

1. Introduction, >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Gully-Report-8-1993-Ch-1-of-10-Introduction.pdf

 

2.Natural Environment, >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Gully-Report-8-1993-Ch-2-of-10-Natural-Environment.pdf

 

3.Cultural Environment, >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Gully-Report-8-1993-Ch-3-of-10-Cultural-Environment.pdf

 

4.Land Use, >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Gully-Report-8-1993-Ch-4-of-10-Land-Use.pdf

 

5.Community Perceptions, Values and Aspirations, >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Gully-Report-8-1993-Ch-5-of-10-Community-Perception-Values-and-Aspirations.pdf

 

6.Special Aspects of the Environmental Management Plan, >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Gully-Report-8-1993-Ch-6-of-10-Special-Aspects-of-the-Environmental-Management-Plan.pdf

 

7.Actions for Restoration and Management of the Public Land, >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Gully-Report-8-1993-Ch-7-of-10-Actions-for-Restoration-and-Management-of-the-Public-Land.pdf

 

8.Actions for Management of Catchment outside Public Land, >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Gully-Report-8-1993-Ch-8-of-10-Actions-for-Management-of-Catchment-outside-Public-Land.pdf

 

9.Environmental Management Programme, >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Gully-Report-8-1993-Ch-9-of-10-Environmental-Management-Programme.pdf

 

10.References, >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Gully-Report-8-1993-Ch-10-of-10-References.pdf

 

Postscript   

 

Upon this study (Part 1 and Part 2) being presented by Dr Fred Bell to The Friends of Katoomba Falls Creek Valley Inc. (The Friends) in June 1993, The Friends formally submitted the complete report to the General Manager of Blue Mountains City Council soon after. 

Council did absolutely nothing with it and just filed it.  Despite many years of The Friends seeking dialogue to act on the study’s recommendations and to establish a local community-based management consultative process with Council, Council shunned and ostracised The Friends continually over 28 years (1988-2016).

There have been some nineteen plans/reports into The Gully at the time of writing this article.  Very little has been done on the ground in The Gully over the decades by Council despite Council being the supposed custodian of all the public/community lands within the Gully. 

 

Further Reading:

 

[1]   ‘A sustained passion for survival, Fred Bell (1932-2009)‘, newspaper article published 16th October 2009 by Harriet Veitch with Bob Walshe in The Sydney Morning Herald, ^https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-sustained-passion-for-survival-20091015-gz5m.html

 

Transcript:

‘Fred Bell wanted to save the world. He lectured in climatology and environmental science around Australia and in other countries, worked for environmental action groups and put his ideas into practice by building eco-friendly houses ahead of their time and growing and eating native plants before it was fashionable.

Frederick Charles Bell was born in Sydney on September 12, 1932, the first of three sons of Charles Bell and his wife Edna Taylor. Charles had been orphaned at eight and was made a ward of the state, the advantage being that he was given a good education and with that went on to be a successful businessman.

 

Fred’s academic ability was soon recognised. He went from Rockdale Public School to the Erskineville opportunity classes and won a bursary to Canterbury Boys High, then selective.

He was an enthusiastic Boy Scout and later became a scout leader. He was also a talented middle-distance runner and later ran in almost every City to Surf race.

After marrying his bushwalking companion, Joan Mayman, an accountant, in 1959, Bell studied science and mathematics at the University of Sydney. After taking his bachelor degree in 1962, he moved to the University of NSW to do a masters in civil engineering in 1965 and a PhD in the mathematical modelling of natural processes in 1974. He started lecturing at the University of NSW in 1970 and by 1972 was a senior lecturer in climatology, geomorphology, biogeography and environmental science.

Dr Bell pursued a wide range of research projects while he was teaching. He was a passionate teacher, bridging the gap between hydrology and climate and in later years championing the introduction of study units in environmental impact analysis. These were the first of their kind in Australia and were a mixture of legal, social and physical science, including the useful art of writing environmental impact statements.

He also, at various times, worked with the University of Newcastle, the Department of Works in Darwin, the CSIRO in Brisbane and Cairns, Florida State University, Colorado State University and the University of East Anglia.

His research contributed significantly to environmental causes such as gaining world heritage listing for North Queensland rainforests, preserving forest ecosystems in NSW and restoring water to the Snowy River and the Macquarie Marshes. His mathematical models for predicting local convective rainfall were successfully adapted by India and several developing countries.

The three family houses that he and Joan designed and built contained ”contraptions” often ahead of their time to help the environment. They all had such innovations as passive solar energy design, compost heaps, worm farms and tanks to recycle waste water, and were often out of character in their areas.

In 1972, Bell joined the management committee of the newly formed Total Environment Centre and remained a member for more than 20 years. There in the 1980s he worked on a study of which NSW forests should be preserved and worked with the centre’s wildlife in peril group to make the first national list of endangered species.

He was on call for the Sutherland Shire Environment Centre from its beginning in 1991 and was also a foundation member of the Community Environment Network on the Central Coast.

Bell stayed at the University of NSW until 1989 then retired to form his own business with Joan, F & J Bell and Associates, an environmental and horticultural consultancy firm. In later years, he focused more attention on climate change, using his expertise in climatology to explain the science of climate change to the public.

He loved cooking and eventually took over the household cooking and shopping. He was always experimenting with new combinations of foods (such as peanut butter, alfalfa sprout and salmon sandwiches) and was highly knowledgeable about bush tucker. Visitors were likely to be offered snacks of cheeky yam, pig face, lemon myrtle, exocarpus, lilli pilli and bunya nuts.

Bell told friends that 2007 was his ”Eureka year” because decades of research and thought had coalesced as a vision of a new applied science, which he called ”pronomics”. It was a revision of mainstream economics with the aim of creating ”ethical economics” or ”sustainable economics” to satisfy present human needs without harm to humans or other life. Bell believed that pronomics would make responsible decision-making possible and address serious global problems such as climate change with scientific predictive techniques.

Bell continued his work all his life and died suddenly, leaving behind extensive notes for books he had planned to write when he had time.

Fred Bell is survived by Joan, their children Heather, Greg and Fiona, seven grandchildren and his brothers Graeme and Rodney.’

 

[2]  The Gully Collection, (a library of information within this website about The Gully in Katoomba) >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/consultancy/the-gully-in-katoomba/the-gully-collection/