Russia to sign Kyoto treaty

[Torsten]

It's a huge leap forward and it hardly made the news. Russia's president Putin has always said that the Kyoto treaty would damage Russia's growth and hence he would not sign it. Putin has now realised just how important the EU is to Russia and the EU has put a lot of pressure on Russia via the WTO. I would have never thought the WTO to be a catalyst of positive change, but in this case it appears to be the case.

Russia will now sign the Kyoto treaty which will then make it international law (there weren't enough signatories to make it law before). This has huge implications for the rest of the world, but hardly any country will 'suffer' more than australia. And we will suffer mostly because unlike many other countries we have not done ANY preparations towards Kyoto.

Under Howard it will be impossible for Australia to sign Kyoto. So if he stays in power then signatory countries will be required to penalise australia by imposing duties and taxes on carbon exports. At a glance this means countries who import australian coal (eg Japan) will put taxes on our coal export. However, it goes much further than that. Manufacturing will over time also be associated with certain carbon values and such taxes will also be imposed here unless companies have their own carbon credit scheme. Overnight we may well lose our coal and gas export markets or make them unprofitable.

Just like high oil prices are currently driving up ALL prices, the extra taxes we will be charged on everything will have a similar deleterious effect on australian industry. But worst of all it is our clean green image that is seriously at risk. So far australia has deceptively managed to maintain this image around the world, but once the brutal reality of carbon trading dominates international trade discussions, it will soon become obvious just where australia stands. The millions we spend in international tourist campaigns will be wiped out in a blink.

It's an exciting time. Only last year no one thought that australias refusal to sign Kyoto would even be noticed by other countries and ka-boom, suddenly it could be the do or die of the australian economy.

Now, if only they could charge cows for their methane emissions and make the beef industry unviable

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.a...0&cid=20&cname=

[Rev]

Torsten:

Now, if only they could charge cows for their methane emissions and make the beef industry unviable

[Ed Dunkel]

And the cows make psilocybes available to us.

But those damned mushrooms will also be adding to the CO2 levels.

[Torsten]

I have nothing against a few cows (I've got some myself), however I do have a problem with the inappropriate mass-farming of them to the land's detriment.

[planthelper]

as a hobby fossicker i know all to well about "runoff" in creeks and the like, a natural alternative would be kanguruh farming.

lees soil compaction, more trees, less runoff and so on...

roo meat is game meat,

it tast's great and gives you more energy than anything else.

...roo gulash once you tasted it, you want it again...

[Torsten]

planthelper, you are SOOOOOO right. I cannot understand why we don't farm roos. They are 100% suited to all the avrious harsh climates in australia, have great survival techniques, are VERY lean and don't do anymore damage than the roos that are already here.

I think this is one of those cases like Macadamias and Emus, where 95% of the world market is grown outside australia because the aussies were too slow or too conservative to realise the potential. Macadamias is probably the best example... a nut native to the Mullumbimby area (where I live) that was well known as a bushfood. Seeds were exported to Hawaii where the potential was realised. 50 years later australia struggles to get a share of the market but really only gets the crumbs. Stoopid, stoopid, stoopid.

[theobromos]

I had imagined Australia as the Land of Cheap Macadamias, just next to the Rose Paradise and Fig Paradise of Islam.

A local shop in Manchester had got their decimal place one place wrong on their macadamias. Unfortunately I only had time to eat about a kilo before they changed it back.

[Rev]

Sheep i agree are ground lice, almost as bad as goats

Sheep graze to the dust then dig up the roots

Cows however are similar to roos in being browsers taking off the grass as a healthy level

Good cattle pasture has a thick sward with interlocking runners reducing runoff and supporting all types of shrooms, there are also often tree saplings in cattle pasture helping to keep the balance

In badly managed pasture there is a predomince of toxic and spiny plants like blady grass, dodonea, thistles, asclepias and a shift towards woody vegetation

In sheep country there is nothing like this

Good sheep country is alayr of sheep shit with ryegrass seedlings and subclover which manage to hang on, and bad areas are dustbowls

There is no regeneration of native veg unless they are fully removed

Kangaroos are similar to cows in that they mainatin a browse layer however they do

have some limitations

Firstly are issues of human health and marketing, customer flavour preference etc.

Deer are likewise the kangaroo of Europe and north america and they are farmed yet they have not taken over from cattle or sheep

i wont dwell here becuase marketing campaigns can change tastes (squid, mushrooms, wine,olive oil etc...)

Thene there is the biological and managemnet

issues which are similar to deer

what happens when you pen up kangaroos in closed paddocks and feed them on pasture? probably the same as deer and goats - they are very susceptible to pathogens especially worms

A shift to roo farming would see gates, fences and the very vegetational structure of the farm

radically altered -annual and short runner grasses would be out, tree legumes, tussock grasses and forage shrubs in

Aboriginals managed the country by burning because roos can only digest a higher quality of browse than do sheep. the rumninant system allows sheep and cattle to break down much lower quality grades of forage

To enhanec the fed quality and produce more roos , the aboriginals used firestick farming

Now if you look back into the prehistory of australia its starts to look like the Australia we found was actually an already damaged ecossytem runing at half mast with regards to its herbivore complement

about 17000 to 19000 years ago australia dried out much more that it is today.

In this time we lost not only most of our large herbivores but also the large carnivores and many rainforest marsupials

what we kep were the roos and wallabies, the thylacine and tassie devil and in teh rainforests which later expanded again the rodents , which were relatively recent arrivals, took over the role diversifying as they dis elsewhere in the world after similar megafuana and mass extinctions (see sth american fauna)

At about 12000 years ago we got Dingos and teh current aboriginal culture (what we had before that is conjecture but seemingly a much more diverse lifestyle but with lower technology which sems to have come with the more recent arrivals - perhaps it is the dingo that made all the difference)

the point? well befeor ethe drying we had many cowlike herbivores that from the dentition grazed at the same level as the cow

On the african svannahs several dozen herbivores co-exist by grazing at specialised levels.

presumabley this ocirred here too until catastrophe killed off the other species.

after this Humans had to intervene to keep up numbers of their prey animals by burning off rank grass - that would have been eaten in times past

(this effectively discounts the status of these animals as 'wild' as they have been semi domesticated since their natural ecology vanished nearly 20000 years ago)

So fast forward and now we have reintroduced browsers and suppressed fire, increased water points, Roo numbers have exploded.

so it seems feasible to run a mixed operation rather than a monoculture

If we are to simply replace with roos we will have to burn regularly to maintain browse - or we can run with cows alternately to imitate the natural grazing patterns

We already do anyway its just that half the animal biomass on a farm is effectively unmanaged and unaccounted for - which makes sustainable grazing difficult

Putting kangaroos on the books could allow culling to manage grazing levels the same way sell off manage sheep and cow numbers

of course we also need some way of tagging the

animals so they can be assigned as property to each farm or it undermines any economic incentive to sustainably manage stocks

wed also need full veterinary investigations into epidemiology of diseases and zoonotic potential of these in human health

Once this is established we need new designs for mustering, drenching and releasing the animals with minimal stress and damage to animals and worker (those legs!!)

I think the technical aspects we can get around - aussies are inventive enough

what will be harder will be convincing the public and the world that the roo is already a domesticated animal not a (on a pedestal) 'wild' animal and so no ethical problem exists in teating it like any other

In africa hunting wildlife based on scientifically estimated cull practices and numbers and done by licenced and indigenous shooters and tracckers is the only way to put humans and megafauna in balance - and yet this si blocked by wildlife advocates based on their new age dogma from the comfort of suburban homes

who ignore the realityu that the only way to conserve something is to give it a lasting value to the lives of the poeple who threaten it

People will flog a 'free' resource till its gone but give someone a quota in an annual harvest and theyll stop others from endangering 'their' resource

(This point again highlights the issues raised about proprietary tagging as well)

my 20c

[Torsten]

what's the point of comparing the animal vs vegatation state from 19,000 years ago with the animal vs vegetation state of the present. Obviously the vegetation has changed along with the animals. So with your theory it would be OK to introduce cattle into australia over a period of a few thousand years, which I probably agree with. But we haven't done that, have we?

Anyway, you should know that the problem with cattle grazing isn't their teeth, but their hard hooves. Look at the damage they do in the alpine areas, or in the victorian plains. No point looking at the local northern NSW system as that is probably quite suitable for such animals.

And if you still thinking that hooved animals are Ok, then ask the NT government why they don't leave those poor feral buffalo alone

[Torsten]

I get the feeling that you oppose much of what goes on in conservation. You disapprove of the local state forest being turned into National Park, you hate greenpeace, and now you tell us cows are OK. on australian land.

If all our conservation is based on whether something is sustainable for industry or the need of the population, then why bother conserving anything? After all, all resources will eventually be required for our comfort and consumption.

Should we only protect the forest that has never been touched, even though it is less than 2% of what was there 200 years ago? or should we try to expand the protected areas even if at a cost to us or industry? You don't seem to think so.

Should we get rid of imported animals that degrade our land through erosion, disease and overgrazing, to make sure that native vegetation can survive? Along your reasoning, the fact that the land has been somewhat compromised already is a good enough reason to let the farmers do whatever they want. Keeping in mind that 25% of the world's endangered animals live on pastoral leases in australia, this is very shortsighted. Even if you just take one of the pastoral leases and get rid of the cows to allow for the native vegetation to recover, you may save dozens of animal species from extinction. And no, this is not my emotional conservationist self, but the focus of a whole group of people who have invested millions of dollars and are doing their work based on research at Sydney Uni.

You often refer to yourself as a conservationist, but I fail to see how you can justify that definition this with the attitudes you present here. I've met quite a few farmers who also call themselves conservationists, but have no problem polluting the environment and promoting serious erosion and salinity. I've even met an old-growth logger who thought of himself as a conservationist. Even John Howard thinks of himself as a conservationist. I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.

[Rev]

Torsten:

what's the point of comparing the animal vs vegatation state from 19,000 years ago with the animal vs vegetation state of the present.

Firstly because 20000 years ag isnt very long, not long enough for the full stability to have returned and because we have been here over 200 years and in the process structurally changed with large herbivores the dynamic back to a similar system that would have existed before . The lush soft grasslands generated by burning/browsing have long gone and the vegetation changed irrevocably. Systems have evolved already to a new state, this can happen very quickly and are not reversible even with the removal of the cause, this will result in a third rearrangement with even lower biodiveristy

Every time this happens biodiversity falls, only to be replaced over a long time scale.

In natural ecosystems this is eveident in the deserst of the world where the oldest deserts have the most endemic adapted species (like australia)

or in human habitats where the rate of introduction can be traced. hedgerows in England started with danish plantings of close set hawthorn after removal of oak forest. It is possibel to estimate the age of a hedgerow by the number of species present within it

However we havent actually lost many plant species - most are still here in niches, and sometimes unexpected ones and other native species have expanded greatly

My point is that the way it was is not the only way it can be, or indeed the way it has been for the majority of the evolution of the plants that exist here, many plants still exist that show characteristics that indicate they evolved with large herbivores, capparis mitchelli for example whose fruits, and very long spines indicate it evolved with browsers much larger than the red kangaroo.

Grazing ecosystems worldwide follow the same mathematical dynamics, Australia and India or africa arent so different in cliamte or soil or even the floristic makeup of our tropical areas

Conservation biology models outline a model that comes into play whenever succesful foreign herbivores are introduced. It involves initail overgrazing and collapse of all populations followed by recovery of equilibrium with teh exotic being the dominant engineer of the vegetation structure

We are only just getting our heads round how much the environment has already changed and how we now have to manage some parts of it as natural though they have exotic origin- if we try to just 'let it go back to nature' it will completely ruin it in short time.

cases in point - lack of burning in the arid lands has reduced diveristy where once aborinals lit mosaic fires to keep it open. The majority of animal losses in the arid areas have been due to this as rank spinifex supports nothing. Comments by aboriginal elders talk about this unmanaged country being ruined

Other point - the snowies.

The wild horse used to cause some damage to the high altitude environment and campaigners removed them. In short time Blackberries swamped the environment

What the horses did was to keep the environment open, controlling introduced plants and as a result a wider number of species can exist along the gradient between open garssland and closed woodland. Now the understory is becoming a monoculture of blackberry where none of the small light needing alpine plants can exist

Other issues involve catch 22's like managing the koala population, as eschelle will explain later.

[/QB][/[/Obviously the vegetation has changed along with the animals. So with your theory it would be OK to introduce cattle into australia over a period of a few thousand years, which I probably agree with. But we haven't done that, have we?[/QB][/

It doesnt work like that. The holocaust for the australian environment has already happenned, and it was over a century and a half ago. Wild mobs of cattle were found in Victoria before people even settled and there is genetic evidence that the stock routes caused hybridisation amongst the native nicotiana species due to seed being distibuted across the migratory routes.

grazing, changed fire patterns and rabbits all hapenned over a century ago and caused the first great extinction. The continuing threats now involve the chnages hapening now like urbanisation or changes in land managemnet sometimes done under the herald of 'conservation'

The numbers and rate of introduction probably dont matter as much as their presence. If it happenned slowly we would have the same results. a suscepible species is just that and will lose its dominant role in the new ecossytem. This is why mosaics are critical to biodiversity (more later)

Even if we wanted to turn it back we couldnt because we dont even know what it looked like! and especially how it worked, we dont even fully understand whats going on under our noses right now - some people are getting into it though and one extremely relevant issue is urban ecology. there is a program now to map the urban wildlife biodiverity to see just how much has come into our cities which can be easier places to live than the bush

what we can do is let go of preconceptions about native vs exotic and look at the bottom line - biodiversity. This wont exist as it did, some grasses for example might now only exist on road verges or old cemeteries, those messy old blocks

and the act of council mowing or occassional grazing may be the only thing keeping the vegetation balance in their favour of these herbs or grasses. there is a plant called the velvet peppercress that exists now only in a few highly disturbed human habitats, conservation efforts killed off a population by attempting to conserve it without underatsning that it wasnt there by accident but rather because the conditions at that site as it WAS managed previosly were in its favour.

in 1977 researchers discovred a patch of perennial teosinte in mexico wherit was grazed by locals. Teosinte is the wild ancestor of corn and the find was unique. In an attempt to mainatin them the initial response was to immediately stop all grazing. within a short period the jungle flooded back in and nearly caused extinction of the patch, grazing and clearing was reinstated and the patch made a recovery. rash decisions based in an ideal not founded on real study do more harm than good

For example - lantana - cursed as a weed but now recognised by some biologist as a key plant in the ecosystem that supports and protects native animals. Without lantana they would have no refuge from predators and i suspect their persistence on teh east coast vs the south and west may even be attributable to lantana to a large degree.

Certainly the gilberts potoroo of which only a few survive only does so because of rare very thick scrub unburnt for 50 years+. it is a bandicoot liek animal with bandicoot liek tatses - and the northern bandicoots are the only species that are still thriving - where the lantana grows

Of course to prove this we just have to wait till they figue out a bio control - and watch the NEXT mass extinction of wildlife

so the basis of my views rest upon knowing that so much has already hapenned that you cant go back, what we have to to do is mainatin biodiversity as it is, and you cant do that with the romantic notions prevalent in the public arena or without the basleine data we lack so much of

[/QB]Anyway, you should know that the problem with cattle grazing isn't their teeth, but their hard hooves.[/QB]

In very dry areas perhaps but more important than that is the stocking rates and range management - in particular water holes.

This is THE major problem in arid rangeland conservation. Before settlement water holes were scarce and ephemeral - animals had to range long distances to get both water and feed in proximity

This conserves feed levels and prevent overgrazing. Now central australia (and the rest) are covered in waterholes, bores, dams - most places in the country its hard to go 5km if that without finding an open body of water

From the air this is strikingly obvious

Current trends in conservation are buying up old pastoral leases and shutting down, filling in and capping water sources. The last animals to go are the goats who range large distances, but one day we may see sandalwood growing again

Most or Australia arid rangeland is degraded to some extent however current grazing parctices are not to blame and many have instituted novel means to mainatin range and stay economically viable

one guy on the edge of the simpson used remote controlled water trough regulation to keep animals moving on as feed levels are used up

saves water and stops feral buildups (mostly goats, donkeys, camels/ concentrates them for easing culling

This land was flogged early on, and i mean late 1800's early 20th century, and its a crime what was done by overstocking but it was also just a symptom of teh reintroduction of large animals. Damage takes a long time to recover but it needs active managemnet or it doesnt at all. a damaged area left will revert to spiny toxic woody scrub, but when stocke are mainatined properly the grasses and forage can be built up again over years. the woody scrub is of no use to most native animals either, they also evolved to feed on the palatable species

There is no evidence to show that australian soils are special in anyway in compaison to soils on africa or india, on the whole we may be very poor by temperate standards but in the tropics of the world we are not unique

africa, india and australia after all derive from the same ancestral bedrock - gondwana

What hooves DO affect is the vegetation on that soil, they change the floral structure of teh ecology. Replace the tussock grasses with Kikuyu, buffel and rhodes grass and there is no difference between and african soil and an australian soil. The hoof thing is a good example of the dogma i fight with against the public - that concept has been floating around for decdes and if soften quoted but the reasoning and the EVIDENCE to support the concept are rarely put forward. Hooves do damage but is it the SOIL that is damaged and is this particular to AUSTRALIAN soil - no its not

(in very arid areas they do trample microphytic crusts - like they do elsehere in teh world when water is piped into the desert to run livestock, this is not an australian problem its a desert problem)

[/QB][/ Look at the damage they do in the alpine areas, or in the victorian plains. No point looking at the local northern NSW system as that is probably quite suitable for such animals.[/QB]

Not where we are or out to kyogle really but yes the casino area is well suited to grassland ecosystems inhabited by multiple level herbivores

and the land there looks mostly to be in excellent condition. Too many poor hillsides cleared where we are

[/QB][/And if you still thinking that hooved animals are Ok, then ask the NT government why they don't leave those poor feral buffalo alone [/QB]

---

The biggest problem with buffalo is not their hooves but their wallowing which is extremely destructive to wetland vegation

HOWEVER now they have been there a long time and the ecosystem has readjusted in many ways it would be dangerous to just remove them all.

what would move in? salvinia, brahmi or water hyacinth or even some native species

would it reduce biodiveristy? it is highly probable

it would be better to study and rate areas in a scale of damage. nearly pristime areas could recover fully and should be kept buffalo free

In damaged areas you have to keep the buffalo but at levels only needed to maintain the balance in favour of highest biodiversity that can be stabilised in that environment

In much the same way you keep cows on wandjina and they keep your grass down, but their numbers are at a level that rainforest regeneration of forest is going ahead faster than if overstocked , or, not stocked and wildfires on the slopes shift the balance in favour of grassland or eucalypt forest

[ 29. May 2004, 17:08: Message edited by: reville ]

[Rev]

(my partners voice)

I have read many posts over the years but I have never felt the need to comment.

I am a conservation biologist and through years of study I have seen many ways to conserve the environment. But what is conservation? Most people think it is a bout conserving the environment as it stands now or an ideal of what it should look like. Wherever humans have lived we have always changed and interacted with nature in order to make it more suitable for our needs. Conservation is a word that should not be used if humans have already interacted with the environment, it should instead be called ecosystem managment. To take a piece of land that has been changed by feral animals and plants, give it boundries and lock it up will create a devasting effect on the balance of feral-indigeneous nature. There is no going back and as reville has pointed out we do not know what was originally there and in what proportions, be it 10years or 100 years ago.

Nature is not as fragile as we make out, as some plants and animals have been lost other species have overtaken their niches in order to balance the scale. In order to keep the balance some animals and plants need to be havested or kept in check so that the scale is not shifted to an equlibrium that is less useful to humans. Useful does not always mean expolited. National parks are needed for some rare organisms but they usually become rare because of an outside threat, or the target species to be saved has always been rare. This means that the area constantly has to be managed to stop feral species invading or spreading. Feral can also mean indigenous species in an area were they are not usually found. Every ecosystem, every species has to be managed on a case by case basis, every ecosystem is in movement and changes. How fast this happens is up to us. Eventually global warming in the next 50 years will change even the most stable of ecosystems.

Case study koalas.

Koalas were in a balance with aboriginals who were their only predators besides a disease called chlamydia which had co-exsisted with them for thousands of years. After colonists came the koala numbers exploded and you couldnt go ten feet without trippn over one . It then become fashionable to wear their coats and millions were slaughted, but there was room for the coats. What there wasnt room for was the wholesale leveling of the environment for farming. Thus koalas became rare. To save the victorian ones (chlamydia free)they were put on a few islands and allowed to overbreed, overeating their habitat and many died. Meanwhile on the mainland isolated pockets of koalas overbred and the chlamidia disease was wipping them out. This disease only affects the koala when overpopulation stress (or other stress)ocuurs. This has always been benificial as koalas can double their population every 6 years, with chlamidia and no stress it doubles only every 11 years. Previously they could move to other habitats but now they are isolated. The public and many conservation groups do not want to cull the cute koalas but what is the alternative? Starvation and sick koalas. Move them elsewhere? but where? We now live on all the prime koala real estate.

Conservation is fraught with politics and money, and that is what it comes down to. People want a magic bullet for everything. To create a wilderness area, study the organisms, keep it in the way we have chosen as right for the environment.

There are not many people interested in true conservation biology in the public, and even less in the government circles. I applaud anyone who wishes to make a difference but what is seen as the "right" way can be found to be wrong later and vice versa.

Tim Low has a very interesting set of books that will enlighten people more on the many and varied aspects of conservation. "Feral Future" and "the New Nature: winners and losers in wild australia". Several of Tim Flannery's titles are also useful and digestable (burp).

"How natural is nature?"

"How wild is wilderness?"

Tim Low.

[ 29. May 2004, 16:46: Message edited by: reville ]

[Rev]

Originally posted by Torsten:

[QB] I get the feeling that you oppose much of what goes on in conservation.[QB]

definitely - conservation is not just a misleading and ill defined word the whole lobby is rotten to the core with ideals that have loyalties in places that contradict what we are fighting for. Its becoming increasingly acceptable to incorporate warm fuzzy politics and blatant propaganda that not supported by evidence into public policy. we were meant to have integrity and evidenc on our side but we got hijacked

They are increasingly large corporate fundraising lobby groups full of bleeding hearts and misanthropic radicals

The conservation, wilderness and wildlife lobbies are starting to turn into liabilities for those trying to elicit the reality and find solutions

They ostracise scientists and bewilder Indigenous people

You disapprove of the local state forest being turned into National Park,

This is no different than locking villagers in India or africa or anywhere else off from their game reserves in the name of conservation. Time and time again its apparent that when the social and legal structure assigns managment and resource extraction to local people to build local economies sustainably it can work

You said tourism would replace any benefits - i say tourism is bunk. Its transient culturally disruptive and unreliable

I would not base a business on tourism these days and its not a sustainable strategy

yes to stopping clearfelling for woodchips, no to locking up local access to wood products for local use and value adding. Many people are planting cabinet timbers as well as utility plantations on private lands but these are a good 3o years off at at least. Stop access outright and you kill the industry that support the skills - once the skills leave the area its hard to get them back.

what you also do is push to outsourcing from private lands that cant be regulated by any modelling or on any scientific basis. Industry isnt some faceless monster itsthe livelihood of the people who live there who have built their culture and way of life in that area

you hate greenpeace

ooh yeah - for all the reasons on the first paragraph

see above comments

and now you tell us cows are OK. on australian land.

i maintain this assertion that they are more than OK - they are now essential in the new ecology

If all our conservation is based on whether something is sustainable for industry or the need of the population, then why bother conserving anything?

A good question but not so useful in this We conserve habitat for many reasons, economic, aesthetic, cultural and historic for study, for intrinsic worth. But none works ins isolation from the social issue of resource accessibility which can be beneficial to mainatining diversity of habitat if managed properly

After all, all resources will eventually be required for our comfort and consumption.

Should we only protect the forest that has never been touched, even though it is less than 2% of what was there 200 years ago? or should we try to expand the protected areas even if at a cost to us or industry?

very little true wilderness exists or has in many millenia in australia. People lived everywhere and certainly do now. Some islands, parts of tasmania deep forest and some other remote areas qualify. the rest is or has been managed and now must continue to be to kep healthy. Yes manage old growth forest to maintain it as such BUT old growth isnt static - its going somewhere in teh succession order

what do we do when it starts dieing of old age? senescence or when the rainforest moves in to 400 year old mountain ash? we must keep the options open to selectively thin or burn it for its own health - in fact for species like leadbeaters possum you have to do this to mak ethe hollows it needs (a fact discovered afer ash wednesday)

If i recall our argument was over whian whian and its conversion to nat pak. I argued in favour of continuing mixed forestry supporting the local economy to keep the mosaic and you argued in favour of creating a rainforest block with no logging tailored to the tourism dollar. I also argued that funds would better be spent creating corridors along ridges and fenced streams on farms to link up the remaining fragments

I see your point but in a world of limited funding id rather see linked pockets over a wide area than all efforts spent on one isolated block no matter how big

my fav word - mosaic mosaic mosaic

You don't seem to think so.

no i dont agree with the nature at the expense of local people theory, it is unsustainable - the parralels to prohibition are striking. just say no? or should we look at harm minimisation practices, education and empowering the little guy? It is also a form of environmental imperialism where people in far away places dictate how you get to use your own resources in a way that doesnt benefit you as much as it should and isnt even based on science

Should we get rid of imported animals that degrade our land through erosion, disease and overgrazing, to make sure that native vegetation can survive?

not practical and as demonstrated possibly harmful by now. better management is the key and to do this we need more govt investmnet in such things

Along your reasoning, the fact that the land has been somewhat compromised already is a good enough reason to let the farmers do whatever they want.

They dont do what they want as much as what they have to. At least not in the way city dwellers do - in the city you get rubbsh collected, water, power and gas on tap. You buy your food cheaply at a local shop. you pay your rates and your environment is maintained. the money in your pay after tax is yours

Farmers have to make a living from the land AND try and mainatin its health (reinvestment) so it can do the same the next year, a lot of money comes in and a lot goes out, whats left isnt much in a lot of cases. and the poeple doing the job arent getting younger - what was the avge age? 55?

I think they could do more with more support. They were paid to clear in many cases, in fact if you didnt clear they took the land back (govt.) now they expect you to pay to fix it all up while selling you out on the free trade agreement and whenever they sell their produce (AWB, freight, potato board, ATO - you name it). Farmers are a stoic bunch but they certainly get a raw deal

Keeping in mind that 25% of the world's endangered animals live on pastoral leases in australia, this is very shortsighted. Even if you just take one of the pastoral leases and get rid of the cows to allow for the native vegetation to recover, you may save dozens of animal species from extinction. And no, this is not my emotional conservationist self, but the focus of a whole group of people who have invested millions of dollars and are doing their work based on research at Sydney Uni.

I sincerely hope that these people (living in sydney mind you ) do not get their way.

to begin to explain the many reasons why thsi recovery isnt likely to do what they think it will would take ages. I think ive already said a bit about that and floral population changes, rank grass, and in the absence of aboriginal burning regimes. the main thing as i said was removing water sources and reinstating burning - the former they may do but i doubt the latter - its a recipe for disaster

I even place my doubts on the estimates about animal numbers. eveidence for the miscalculation comes from work done with the aboriginal owners of uluru. In point, a lizard seen only a handful of times by fly in fly out researchers and presumed very rare. Local aboriginal people were (finally) asked and they said there was plenty of them and proceeeded to help the researchers find - plenty

I argue that based on the results of taking people off the land before it is very dangerous to do the same again

and youll find that once the cows are gone ,and the rifles silenced feral and native animals will INCREASE and do more damage than a managed lease (goats, camels, donkeys, roos)

You often refer to yourself as a conservationist, but I fail to see how you can justify that definition this with the attitudes you present here.

I maintain i am, and a well informed one in the true complexities of problems and solutions. Conservation isnt a field for the sentimental or misanthropic

I've met quite a few farmers who also call themselves conservationists, but have no problem polluting the environment and promoting serious erosion and salinity.

farming isnt easy. But many make a good go of it and im very impressed at the sacrifices and progresses made by farmers in reversing the trends. Theyve had to make a hell of a lot more sacrifices than any city dwellers who so far have demanded cheap food and done absolutely nothing ( but preach ) to be part of the solution

I've even met an old-growth logger who thought of himself as a conservationist.

Ive met advocates who are old foresters also who take this view. It has merit in some ways, there is healthy old growth and sick old growth, there are also way to take timber out without damaging the integrity of the forest. I support their right to earn a living from the forest, monitored by scientific assessmnet and on a quota system based on renewal - just like the successfully sustainable fisheries (rock lobster) are done. I dont support govt susbisdies industrial woodchip logging of any forest except that on plantation farmland

Even John Howard thinks of himself as a conservationist.

dont you mean conservative? anyway not much diff between the thinking of that and most conservationist - both rely on outdated concepts and simplified solutions

I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.

yes it is which is why science must nnever leave the debate and why human needs must never be trampled upon by ideals - what is the point of a healthy world if we are not part of it? i oppose the further disengagemnet of people from the natural world

[ 29. May 2004, 18:27: Message edited by: reville ]

[Torsten]

Originally posted by reville:

(my partners voice)

Hi Eschelle!

But what is conservation?...Conservation is a word that should not be used if humans have already interacted with the environment, it should instead be called ecosystem managment.

This might be your definition, but it is not the general definition of conservation. Technically conservation is nothing more than "preserving what remains". And while this might not be the ideal way of managing the environment, THAT is the definition of conservation. If you don't agree with this definition then call yourself an "ecosystem manager". At no point does conservation include the compromise of the target, which is where the difference lies.

The problem with conservation is that many people think that by using population control you are compromising the target and this is where the friction between the 'emotional conservationists' and the 'scientific conservationists' arises.

Case in point, the Koalas. If you have to cull some populations to ensure they remain genetically or sustainably viable and this is done on the basis of good scientific research (ie research that is not funded by an interest body), then that is good conservation. If you however allow the culling on the basis of keeping up with the demand for fur coats, then this is not conservation, but rather resource management.

Reville's point in regards to Whian Whian state forestw as that the fact this was already disturbed land and did not in itself have much conservation value, it may as well be used for the timber resource. This is as shortsighted as the logging lobby itself as it does not take into account that National Parks of World heritage value (such as the neigbouring Nightcap NP) require buffer zones. He also neglected to consider that clear felling would destroy many of the water courses going into or past Nightcap. Add to this that several rare and endangered plant and animal species have already taken up home in the state forest and his suggestion is simply not in line with the concept of conservation. Once you take into accoutn the enormous profit to the region in tourism and quality of life and his suggestion doesn't even equate to good resource management.

You say that nature is resilient and will find a new balance. I agree, but how far do we want to push this? The US has already stated that a rising of sea levels is not something they worry about (much to the ange rof pacific island nations), and have even stated that global warming will make the US a more livable place. Sure nature will find a new balance, but at what cost? Such massive changes would cause the extinction of many, many species at a rate only seen historically at times of global disasters. Surely you can't simply let this happen, then manage the new system and call that conservation?

So if we accept that changing the worlds climate and hence virtually all ecosystems is not conservation, then why not apply this to a smaller scale closer to home? Expanding the destruction of the remaining 2% of the Mt Warning Caldera rainforest (which includes 3 world heritage national parks) surely isn't conservation either.

To take a piece of land that has been changed by feral animals and plants, give it boundries and lock it up will create a devasting effect on the balance of feral-indigeneous nature. There is no going back and as reville has pointed out we do not know what was originally there and in what proportions, be it 10years or 100 years ago.

Actually, we do know what was there (fossils etc). At the very least we know what species were there. We may not know the exact proportions of their populations, but we know they existed.... and now many don't and even more of them are on the way out. They are not on the way out because of the natural evolutionary process, but because of the pressures we have put on them via grazing and ferals in an incredibly short space of time (in the case of central australia a mere 100 years or so).

You are right, there is no going back to exactly how it was. And obviously at the moment we also won't be getting back the extinct species (which I find a waste of money anyway). But what we can do is to make sure that our generation isn't responsible for eliminating another record number of species in an area that is of little use to agriculture anyway. Keeping animals in zoos is one thing, but actually creating reserves for them in their natural habitat is much better. For this we need to remove feral animals and grazing stock.

Ethabuka has been cattle free for only a few months and already the scientists are overwhelmed by the variety of native grasses and plants that have appeared during this wet season. These natives are essential for recovering and expanding the native animal population. It's not rocket science....

Nature is not as fragile as we make out, as some plants and animals have been lost other species have overtaken their niches in order to balance the scale.

Yep, in australia most niches were filled by feral animals and stock. Only very few natives have expanded dramatically.

In order to keep the balance some animals and plants need to be havested or kept in check so that the scale is not shifted to an equlibrium that is less useful to humans.

As stated above, culling purely for the sake of the animal is a good thing. Culling with anything else in mind is not. My criticism isn't about koalas, roos or possums. It is about rainforest margins, about saving species in central australia and about putting the environment first without compromising it for our financial gain. We are not subsistence farmers who need to eat rare local native animals to survive (such as many peoples in poor countries). We are a rich country and we are making compromises on the basis of greed. Those logs from Whian Whian state forest would be sold to chipping companies for minimal export revenue. If loggers needed to pay the ACTUAL cost of repairing the land and restoring the resource then logging would not be profitable in many areas.

Useful does not always mean expolited. National parks are needed for some rare organisms but they usually become rare because of an outside threat, or the target species to be saved has always been rare. This means that the area constantly has to be managed to stop feral species invading or spreading.

Hence it is important to make such ares large and give them buffer zones. This has sadly been neglected in the past, but is slowly becoming more prevalent.

In most cases 'useful' does mean exploited. There are VERY few resources we manage sustainably.

Eventually global warming in the next 50 years will change even the most stable of ecosystems.

It is interesting to note that 10+ years ago people were fighting global warming, but with a new generation growing up being spoonfed the inevitability we have also become a lot more compacent and have lowered our expectations of what can be achieved.

Conservation is fraught with politics and money, and that is what it comes down to. ...To create a wilderness area, study the organisms, keep it in the way we have chosen as right for the environment.

There are not many people interested in true conservation biology

Don't know what they teach you at Uni these days, but this is a pretty sick view of conservation. There used to be distinctly separate fields of resource management and conservation and the two often don't agree. I guess now they are taught as one and the same. Looks like these days we look at everything from our perspective rather than that of the other organisms and want to manage it for our benefit rather than theirs. That simply isn't conservation.

[Rev]

Conservation is defined by the World Conservation Strategy as "The managment of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benifit to present generations while maintaining the potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations".

 

Torsten:

Originally posted by reville:

(my partners voice)

Case in point, the Koalas....done on the basis of good scientific research that is good conservation... allow the culling on the basis of keeping up with the demand for fur coats, then this is not conservation, but rather resource management.

Reply

That is conservation if it is sustainably managed.(eschelle)

(The objective approach in conservation science do not look to impose such delineations or value judgements on the morailty of the fur trade vs mass incineration of intact carcasses but rather to meet the desired outcome - that is a healthy stable population that is not outstripping its habitat and thus depriving other organisms of ther existence, your former definition is proper grounds for use, the latter is not 'resource' management its a 'lack of' (Rev))

 

quote:

---

Reville's point in regards to Whian Whian state forestw as that the fact this was already disturbed land and did not in itself have much conservation value, it may as well be used for the timber resource.[/qb]

---

Reply. Buffer zones are needed but this does not preclude the fact that they need to be managed sustainably to stop species invading the Nat Park (Shell).

(And i argued that without active forestry management there would be no economic incentive to do this - that is keep out weeds - A rainforest bloc would have few roads with which to see or access outbreaks of alien species , meanwhile the pigeons will still bring in the camphor and privet seeds : rev)

 

quote:

---

He also neglected to consider that clear felling would destroy many of the water courses going into or past Nightcap.[/qb]

---

Reply He did not say clearfelling he said selective logging. (also we spoke about this and suggested that littoral habitats be kept as buffer while the forestry blocks be managed for local timber needs. I said that the rainforest could be maintained in these undisturbed buffers while growing of hoop pine and the eucalyptus species, or other timbers goes on in the main block, remmeber im still thinking of this for conservation value - you may find this amusing but ill call it 'environmental logging' based on the desired outcome of a mosaic forest: rev)

 

quote:

---

Add to this that several rare and endangered plant and animal species have already taken up home in the state forest and his suggestion is simply not in line with the concept of conservation. Once you take into accoutn the enormous profit to the region in tourism and quality of life and his suggestion doesn't even equate to good resource management. [/qb]

---

Reply Ok lets ask why are the animals taking up residence there? might it have anything to do with the real possibility that the close proximity of various habitats in hoop stands, eucalyptus and rainforest of many ages creates a smorgasboard of possible habitats.

Either way they are living there in that forest as it stands as it is managed, why change the variables. Alter the management strategy without knowing EXACTLY what they are using and you risk losing them. oops! The beloved old growth forest though holding a high level of endemism are usually poorer in biodiversity than younger forests, therefore conserve untouched old growth but manage the rest to keep some at all stages at any one time

As for tourists - they come anyway - its easy enough to manage road access to keep areas open or closed, and if the information is open and public exactly what the intent and outcomes of management are then i think people will understand why it is so important to learn to manage forests sustainably: rev

 

quote:

---

You say that nature is resilient and will find a new balance. I agree, but how far do we want to push this? The US has already stated that a rising of sea levels is not something they worry about (much to the ange rof pacific island nations), and have even stated that global warming will make the US a more livable place.[/qb]

---

They are in a fools paradise. You think west nile virus would have given them a reminder how lucky they were in the cold but now theyll get all the goodies blowing in from central america and elsewhere. Global warming is bad news but pretending it isnt already too late just delays thinking about how we are going to cope

 

quote:

---

Sure nature will find a new balance, but at what cost? Such massive changes would cause the extinction of many, many species at a rate only seen historically at times of global disasters. Surely you can't simply let this happen, then manage the new system and call that conservation?

 

[/qb]

---

Reply The CO2 emissions already in the atmosphere will make the average temp rise even if we stopped now. Yes we should stop now, but at this time who will make a complete sacrifice of the current western stlye of living. We should start now and their are many ways, but the CO2 is already there. I wholeheartedly agree with the Kyoto protocol but it comes down to politics and rich vs deveolping nations who want and have a right to our lifestyles (shell).

(great scenario - we lock up the nat park as you say and the climate shifts rainfall patterns leaving the forest high and dry, without my corridors there is no way plants, animals or even genes have a chance to move. My way we try and manage it to be a cross representation of the habitats in the area in flux and hope whatever can migrate outwards does : rev)

 

quote:

---

So if we accept that changing the worlds climate and hence virtually all ecosystems is not conservation, then why not apply this to a smaller scale closer to home? Expanding the destruction of the remaining 2% of the Mt Warning Caldera rainforest (which includes 3 world heritage national parks) surely isn't conservation either.

 

[/qb]

---

Reply

We did not say to destroy the remaning Mt Warning rainforest, we never would. Unfortunatly if the global temp does rise the cloud forest will dissapear (shell).

(my strategy of expanding keystone species in corridors would significantly increase habitat on land not otherwise under any use. changing ecosystems is not conservation, conservation is managing changed ecosystems: rev)

 

quote:

---

Keeping animals in zoos is one thing, but actually creating reserves for them in their natural habitat is much better. For this we need to remove feral animals and grazing stock.[/qb]

---

Reply

In some cases (but not all) the feral animals and livestock are the only thing that is keeping them alive. I do approve of removing stock from overgrazed land to give it time to recover but some times you just need rotation and lowered levels of stock and an adjustment to the recommended carrying capacity of the land (shell)

(..and replace aborigianl practices...you seem to be ignoring the root cause of their decline has been demosntarted to be predation and not grazing but mainly change in fire regimes, grazing imitates some aspects of this by keeping it open, remove this and theyre gone for sure : rev)

 

quote:

---

These natives are essential for recovering and expanding the native animal population. It's not rocket science....[/qb]

---

Reply

Actually it is, you have to assess which grasses are recovering, what insects, and animals are returning, are they pest species? It is about population dynamics (shell).

(to see it simplistically as a success in the first season is completely wrong and attitudes like that exemplify why even the best intended conservation efforts fuck with the tenuous balance that exists - these are disturbance species not climax species. what happens at the end of the wet when it all dries out and nothing eats it? goes rank, wildfires? then the spinifex or thorny acacia scrub moves in and closes it up - this is exactly the model suggested for the change in structure when the big grazers dies out leading to mass extinction, only the careful managemnet by fire mainatined productivity so humans could live there and expand their territories. What then for the natives? The fact the seed was ther indicates that the plants arent extinct but at a low level. This experiment is sueful but should be reassessed now before it goes too far, sure the ground needs resting to accumulat seed but itll change quickly now without the cows: rev)

 

quote:

---

Yep, in australia most niches were filled by feral animals and stock. Only very few natives have expanded dramatically.[/qb]

---

Reply

Rubbish. There are many native species that have taken advantage of us humans. See Tim Low. Species have always expolited us humans (shell).

(lots and lots and lots of species use us - funny thing is we are only seeing this now, because we are only looking now, weve been blind to it. Our cities are full of birds from all over the country, possums, numerous insects and reptiles, what about the seagull biomass in aust cities ? Part of the confusion has been that we didnt know what was from where but recent research suggest that wildlife in australia is in the midst of major migrations and profound changes in behaviour in response t humans - for example did you know there are now fruit bat colonies in melbourne? look at the many acclimatisation attempts - most failed and most niches not filled by the usual domestics have been filled by non local 'native' animals (rev)

 

quote:

---

As stated above, culling purely for the sake of the animal is a good thing. Culling with anything else in mind is not.[/qb]

---

Reply

You can cull for the sake of the animal and then not waste it! It makes us value the species even more as it becomes part of our livlihood (shell).

(Totally disagree. An animal is an animal, wild or cultivated, and public policy on what we do with them should be based solely on maintaining their integrity not on wild vs domestic which overlap and are artificial constructs. If it can be done sustainably it can then be allowed taking into consideration public contributions on the most humane and effective ways. The level of culling is based on a Total allowable limit that should be less than the estimated maximum sustainable yield - err on side of caution - an yes that means i concede that should an independent body find so that minke whale harvesting should be allowable under international monitoring, but morally i object to my society being part of it. i am not hypocritical)

 

quote:

---

My criticism isn't about koalas, roos or possums. It is about rainforest margins, about saving species in central australia and about putting the environment first without compromising it for our financial gain.[/qb]

---

Reply

We can have both!

And my criticism is that the view that leaves out socially responsible development and neglects active management of a previously managed system is bound for failure, indicated by the marker of success, the level of biodiversity. :rev)

 

quote:

---

We are not subsistence farmers who need to eat rare local native animals to survive (such as many peoples in poor countries).[/qb]

---

Reply Some of us like to eat wallabies

(my point was that we have a local culture who benefits from a resource, a resource that is theirs and should be managed for their use while conserving its value measured by biodiversity. revenue from the state forests like bushmeat from the game reserve maintains the political, social and economic basis for their continuance on good terms. The area has precious few other natural resources : rev)

 

quote:

---

We are a rich country and we are making compromises on the basis of greed. Those logs from Whian Whian state forest would be sold to chipping companies for minimal export revenue. If loggers needed to pay the ACTUAL cost of repairing the land and restoring the resource then logging would not be profitable in many areas.[/qb]

---

Reply

We said not to log for the sake of wood chips and regeneration is not expensive. Gee, look at what Work for the Dole has achieved (shell).

(I think the danger is in becoming like japan who locks up its own forest but imports unsustainably harveted logs from vulnerable countries. we will need timber and it should be grown here. It is better on so many levels to encourage forestry in an area not suited to much else - i mean how many macas do they expect to plant before the environment is ruined by the poisons they use or decimated by disease of the monoculture and who really thinks they can compete sustainably with the millions of ha of coffee already in the world using cheaper labour , and coffee is and awful rf weed, Wonderful timber came from that area to make furniture and furnish houses australia wide and should continue to do so. We wont be rich forever and should plan ahead for when we have zero economic growth = sustainable : rev)

 

quote:

---

Hence it is important to make such ares large and give them buffer zones. This has sadly been neglected in the past, but is slowly becoming more prevalent.[/qb]

---

(I prefer my model of 'integration' zones :rev)

 

quote:

---

In most cases 'useful' does mean exploited. There are VERY few resources we manage sustainably.[/qb]

---

Reply

But we can!

(several agricultural and fishery models approach the benchmarks of sustainability, as do some industrial processes and housing design and urban planning. now we must institute the changes. of course there is still the energy defecit which hasnt been solved yet. sustainability in many fields is now an economic and legal issue not as much a technical one, much work has been done in science to find new ways : rev)

 

quote:

---

It is interesting to note that 10+ years ago people were fighting global warming, but with a new generation growing up being spoonfed the inevitability we have also become a lot more compacent and have lowered our expectations of what can be achieved.[/qb]

---

Reply Uh huh? Spoonfed ay! We are not complacent babies begging for more. At university you can debate ideas and accept the ones that make the most sense to youjust as you do. Saying we are a generation is to make a wide generalisation about all the people under 25 in Australia. Is your generation much different?. Everyone is unique and you should not make assumptions on "generations".I think the next "generation" is becomeing more knowledgeable about the many aspects of conservation and is pushing for change. We are the future . Greenpeace does have its place in bringing some issues to media attention, but it also misses the mark on other aspects. Not everything is back and white. What is one mans trash is another species treasure (shell).

(lol 10 years ago they gave us 10 years to get our shit together... guess what... so someone had to make the call and change the emphasis from 'preventing global warming' to 'dealing with global warming' Im afraid we missed the opportunity to prevent it but as we are right at the beginning the new imperative is to clear the way so species can do what they have to do to survive the changes. For what we know Mt warning may not be fit for rainforest in 50 years and it will have had to move south, how are we going to help porevent total loss? while the public still debates the C.B's will have to be already at work or itll be too late: rev)

 

quote:

---

Don't know what they teach you at Uni these days, but this is a pretty sick view of conservation. There used to be distinctly separate fields of resource management and conservation and the two often don't agree. I guess now they are taught as one and the same. That simply isn't conservation. [/qb]

---

Reply see first paragraph for definition.

Every person and organisation in conservation means well but we each have our own opinions, hence the political nature of conservation and the slow response of governments.

(Thankfully they were reconciled and settled on the indicators of success which makes it possible to get on with the job of actually looking after it all now instead of haggling over abstract concepts like intrinsic worth - its all valuable and the aim is to maintain biodiversity while incorporating sutaianble development of human societies by whatever strategies work : rev)

[ 29. May 2004, 21:32: Message edited by: reville ]

[waterdragon]

wow, better throw in a post here to prevent a 'two horse race', in a hurry here so i haven't read all above that i wanted to.

some points.

i have declared koala habitat on my property despite the fact that koalas have never been seen there, hopefully i'll get onto a relocation program one soon day.

roo meat is the gear. free range. organic. priced right. tastier than beef if you select the right size roo.

cattle will be an integral part of some of my paddocks, it would be foolish of me to farm without them, they can contribute to a healthier soil in many ways, feel free to ask, and will keep the growth under control.

australia is in real danger of losing its green image and market advantage, ie g.e crops. we have a unique position in the world which would nearly enable us to corner the market in organic produce(enormous recent growth) but we seem determined to stuff it up.

more to follow, i like this topic.

[ 29. May 2004, 22:08: Message edited by: waterdragon ]

[Rev]

LOL well at least there's one thing i think we'll all agree on! - GE Food being not wanted

i dont want to eat it, or eat things that have eaten it or have it grown in my country - on sociopolitical grounds not really scientific or moral - that is i dont like the trend towards MN corp having so much influence over food security

- and for WD's marketing reasons which are prob worth more than having GE technology in the field

I dont actually believe they are harmful to eat tho, at least not the roundup ready series (excusing any residues but technically thats herbicide toxicity not GE problems). BT series is more of a concern but mainly to organic agriculture as it undermines the use of that agent

hey did you know you can buy glo-fish these days in the US - interesting spin-off from water quality testing model animal

http://www.glofish.com/

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/04...escent.fish.ap/

[Rev]

Just in case anyone isnt sure what i mean when i talk about measuring 'biodiversity' as an indicator ( its another abused term)

Its not simply a measure of species number, the biodiversity value is measured by the diversity bewteen the groups also.

Hence why Rainforest is so biodiverse - lots of species and from unrelated genera and families, whereas a forest of mixed eucalyptus species is less biodiverse even if it has the same number of species as they are all close relatives.

So Antarctic beech for example which is often a monoculture of this species doesnt count high for its dominant woody species

BUT it does have a high level of endemic primitive plants, fungi and invertebrates and so is unique

Likewise Eucalyptus forests have measured very high levels of invertebrate endemism (400 - 600 invertebrate species from one species, they tested Marri and jarrah in WA, and also Box from the dividng range as well as one other and all hade these very high levels)

Endemism also affects the assigned value as species found in many environments even continents - say the house mouse - do not add much to the biodiversity value despite counting as one species

why is this important in the practical sense?

The greater the fundamental differences between primitive body/plant/genetic/biochemical plans are the more potentially different options those species have to evolve into new species in future and hence the greater the value to conserve them. They are the wellsprings of life you could say and so places with many primitive species are very valuable

But the biodiversity isnt the only value - highly specialised creatures also have extraordinary worth - seagrass for example. There are few species and fewer genera yet they form extensive beds worldwide and support massive ecosystems

interestingly its mostly the highly specialised and highly evolved groups that provide bulk resources for us - Annual grasses, solanaceae,Pines, Eucalypts, Ruminants and many more.

So while biodiversity is a very useful management tool but it is certainly not a measure of human utility, rather quite an eco-centric measure of biological richness.

[waterdragon]

Originally posted by reville:

[QB] (my partners voice)

I have read many posts over the years but I have never felt the need to comment.

you've shown incredible restraint. great first post too.

To take a piece of land that has been changed by feral animals and plants, give it boundries and lock it up will create a devasting effect on the balance of feral-indigeneous nature.

this has been the problem with vast tracts of national parks in my area (snowy mts). these wilderness areas have been locked up and access reduced, the result of this neglect has been massive fuel loads and the emergence of blackberry as a species beyond defeat, bushfires are intense and almost impossible to control because of blackberries taking over roads and general lack of road upkeep, blackberries don't mind the fires - it just gives them a feed for next years growth.

Case study koalas.

Koalas were in a balance with aboriginals who were their only predators besides a disease called chlamydia which had co-exsisted with them for thousands of years. After colonists came the koala numbers exploded and you couldnt go ten feet without trippn over one . It then become fashionable to wear their coats and millions were slaughted, but there was room for the coats. What there wasnt room for was the wholesale leveling of the environment for farming. Thus koalas became rare. To save the victorian ones (chlamydia free)they were put on a few islands and allowed to overbreed, overeating their habitat and many died. Meanwhile on the mainland isolated pockets of koalas overbred and the chlamidia disease was wipping them out. This disease only affects the koala when overpopulation stress (or other stress)ocuurs. This has always been benificial as koalas can double their population every 6 years, with chlamidia and no stress it doubles only every 11 years. Previously they could move to other habitats but now they are isolated. The public and many conservation groups do not want to cull the cute koalas but what is the alternative? Starvation and sick koalas. Move them elsewhere? but where? We now live on all the prime koala real estate.

i have a section of land that was declared as koala habitat by the state gobmint and i'd toyed with the idea of reducing the load on big koala populations elsewhere, alas 'tis not sustainable. the area is wedged between thousands of acres of pine forests then farming lands. i've mentioned this declared habitat to third generation farmers in the area and they look at me like i'm dense, claiming neither they nor anyone they're aware of has ever heard of koalas around here. makes me wonder at the motives for the declaration.

[Rev]

(Hamtaro/shells voice)

Thanks Im a conservation biologist by trade so i had to add my two cents too. I found nearly every aspect of conservation work in private and public circles to have more than one layer of politics. There are really not many jobs where a person can have free reign to study all the problems of a particular environment and have then time, resources and funding to implement solutions.

I am intrigued by your property and wish you all the best in maintaing a high level of local biodiversity. If koalas werent there orginally I wouldnt relocate them as they can create pop. managment problems and they need to have their gut flora adjusted to the local eucalypts. You might find that there are other sp. like Greater Gliders that already fill their niche. I only wish I could spend more time on research but I have a 3 month old daughter. For now I can watch Landline, read some books and plan for the future

[waterdragon]

i'm fairly lucky in that the biodiversity seems to be sustaining itself. we have echidnas, emus, kangaroos, possums, wombats, deer, many bird species, a few reptile species, small bats, too many rabbits and the foxes they attract, thousands of frogs, etc. many of these things seem to be here courtesy of the properties long period of neglect.

nearby the forest areas are home to all manner of ferals - horses, foxes, dogs, cats, goats, pigs, etc. and blackberry as far as the eye can see.

hopefully i'll be planting mid-storey shrubbery ie banksias, calistemons etc in some areas mainly as a bird refuge so as to never need to use pesticides.

have visions of rev (and hopefully family) finding the time to drop in one day as i have a project that begs for his brand of expertise.

[ 31. May 2004, 20:42: Message edited by: waterdragon ]

[Ed Dunkel]

That was a very informative series of posts.

Thanks everyone for peeling back the foreskin of conservation and ecosystem

[Darklight]

reville:

Conservation is defined by the World Conservation Strategy as "The managment of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benifit to present generations while maintaining the potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations".

Gawd, is it? That's an awful sentence IMO. "Sustainable benefit to present generations" is one terribly loaded phrase and encompasses a multitude of sins- Who decides how many 4WDs does the average Australian urban family get to own before 'yield' becomes non-sustainable?

Most management statements are suss- but this one is the sussest I've seen. I prefer the notion of integrity and balance to the one way street of 'yield'

Hamtaro welcome :D It's great to see you here! This is one of the most fascinating and comprehensive discussions on conservation I've ever seen here, thought the hair splitting is making my head spin- can we have some more?

[waterdragon]

more? hair splitting or head spinning?

[Hamtaro]

"Most management statements are suss- but this one is the sussest I've seen. I prefer the notion of integrity and balance to the one way street of 'yield'."

Integrity is a bit too undefined for cons bio, who decides what is integral to a specific ecosystem?. Do you want it like it was a year ago, ten, hundred?. What species have been lost? why do you want to bring them back if they need constant human intervention?. That is not a balanced ecosystem. To tell you the truth, we do it because we feel guilty about it, we destroy an ecosystem and drive species to extinction and then want to bring it back. Which is all well and good for the animals being lost, not so good for the species moving in and makes us feel good. I dont mean to always exploit environments for the consumption patterns of humans. But humans who use the environment for a local industry tend to have a vested interest in maintaing the environment (with eduction).Just having a quiet place to enjoy or go camping is still in our benifit.

Balance, is just a self sustaining term. You can shift the equilbrium point on any scale to more, or less, biodiversity and production and create a new balance. This thread has become philosophical to me, part of the training at uni is to argue both sides and both sides have merit, but most ecosystems cannot survive now as we want them too (current or former state), without human intervention.

Hamtaro welcome :D It's great to see you here! This is one of the most fascinating and comprehensive discussions on conservation I've ever seen here, thought the hair splitting is making my head spin- can we have some more? [/QB]

Hair splitting is making my head spin too, but that was part n parcel of 4 years at uni (I love case studies on native australian fauna :D ), I just dont have the training to hair split on media cultures for Acacia phlebophylla (Rev helped me spell that). Maybe sometime in the future when little Acacia sleeps reguarly you can teach me about tissue culture.

[ 10. June 2004, 21:46: Message edited by: Hamtaro ]