Environmental Vandalism??

Why would you say that?, Honky has been posting for a number of years.

A lot of people (including me) have very similar views as to the management (or lack thereof) of National Parks within Australia.

It is not a simple solution to lock them up and let them go feral, they require constant management which includes controlled burns and animal management.

I thought the thread was either a joke or riling up passive park users.

The original purpose of national parks in NSW was to lock away land for protection and public recreation, not hunting or forestry or mining, not resorts either for that matter.

Over the last 50 years this legislation has been slowly chipped away so parks management has less control then the politicians with the portfolios. Leasehold land is increasing, recreational hunting is being introduced to NSW parks, forestry leases have been issued and more are on the table and mines have been active in parks for decades but leases are also increasing. Commercial tourism development is rapidly increasing.

I am a "greenie" and campaign for national parks to be managed as nature would have it. I don't mind bushwalking tracks being over grown because I know how to use a map and compass. I hate the thought of the very small percentage of protected land being used for industry and commercial gain by revenue hungry governments who care nothing for the long term health of our natural habitats and the natural order of our environment.

Not all parts of a park need to be controlled and not all parks need to be controlled. We need wilderness zones accessible only by foot or air and we need larger tracts of habitats returned to their natural state. It protects diversity and allows future generations to see what it used to be like before we destroyed it with human progress.

In reality, there is not a single piece of land that hasn't been touched by the progress of humans in some way, be it farming, cities, vehicle access, air pollution, global warming, etc. there is no "true wilderness" left on the face of the planet so we should be doing more to hold onto what is left.

Development and control isn't progress if it threatens nature.

About fire, you buy land next to a national park you understand the threat and take measures on your own property to protect it, don't go whinging to the park about how dangerous their trees and leaf litter are. Or just don't buy land next to a national park. The same threat exists living next to a state forest or conservation area. The ACT fires 10 years ago were a fiasco and ACT made mistakes but allowing the fires to run their natural course inside the alps national parks was the right decision. Control burns are responsible so long as they don't impinge on wilderness zones where fire will naturally occur. I just hope some of the red neck national park fire managers don't get their way and systematically burn the whole lot without allowing adequate time for regen, wildlife movement and sensitive habitats like alpine herb patches, mountain pygmy possum and corroboree frog habitats. These same issues exist in all national parks where vulnerable and threatened species of plants and animals are protected by locking the land away, ie, one of the original purposes of national parks.

About ferals, i support humane control programmes but i haven't seen any used yet. I have seen inhumane poisoning, trapping and shooting where some rangers and contractors use humane methods but many do not use humane methods either by accident, miscalculation or not giving a dam. The reintroduction of dingos will make a huge dent on the feral problem but too many people still see them as a problem. Take alpine dingos for example, where they have been reintroduced the number of cats, dogs and other ferals has significantly dropped and the numbers of small native marsupials has increased. The damage caused by horses and deer is hyped up. Pigs are a real problem. Culling licenses are issued to too many shooters without the expertise to kill with one shot and that is unacceptable. I can go on for a long time about this because I have been researching it, following it, witnessed it, seen the results of it over 20 odd years living and walking in NSW national parks. It disgusts me that contractors, researchers and rangers still get it wrong after all these years and millions of tax payers dollars wasted on it. The most humane solutions just happen to be the safest, cheapest and resource efficient.

I appreciate that my views are not popular among some group cultures but I believe I am not the only park user on this forum who likes the idea of increasing protected land and letting nature do her thing.

"About fire, you buy land next to a national park you understand the threat and take measures on your own property to protect it, don't go whinging to the park about how dangerous their trees and leaf litter are. Or just don't buy land next to a national park. The same threat exists living next to a state forest or conservation area. "

Actually, not true about State Forests. In the past they were selectively culled, had sufficient fire trails and breaks, and had low impact ground litter reduction and burn. Some of the farmers families had lived next to these state forests for generations and looked after them. I know, I grew up next to one. Last 15 years NP&W have come in and closed them off, let the trails grow over, and dead litter is through the roof. NP&W won't allow controlled burns. All the locals who border the 'park' now look over their shoulders VERY VERY nervously.

+1 Scott. Good comment.

If you live near bushland, even managed bushland, fire is a threat. I'm not saying the threat is as much as living near land that hasn't been cleared, thinned or hasn't had a recent prescribed burn but it is still there because it is Australian bush and it burns well.

BTW I have 5 years fire fighting experience in QLD, NSW and SA and have learnt a bit from people who have made the study and control of fire their career.

Terra, anyone who lives near these Forests knows they're a threat. That isn't a surprise.

In the past the controlled burns were done in a section of the forest selectively over a number of years. Impact to wildlife was minimal, regeneration was quick, and ground litter was controlled.

However due to the changed 'management', what the locals used to assess as reasonable risk of a low to medium impact fire with the "threat and take measures on your own property to protect it" suddenly now has become the risk of a high impact or firestorm event potentially throwing embers miles beyond what has historically happened.

Sorry if you see this as "whinging" - most of the locals see it as a reasonable response to bad management.

Terra,

You say "In reality, there is not a single piece of land that hasn't been touched by the progress of humans in some way, be it farming, cities, vehicle access, air pollution, global warming, etc. there is no "true wilderness" left on the face of the planet so we should be doing more to hold onto what is left."

I have great difficulty with the notion that humans are somehow "outside" or "invasive of " natural systems or even "wilderness". Surely humans are part and parcel of the environment - we are just another animal after all. I do think that many people who now live in urban environments are quite alienated from the wilder, or more "natural" parts of our environment, but I still cant bring myself to see us as anything other than part of the environment. And that perspective can make a big difference in how one views environmental management - something that I have been actively involved in for a long time.

Cheers,

Val

terra you are a FOOL.
dont you realise that periodic burns that are not as intense as bushfires ?
they give the trees the chance to regenerate because of the lower intensity burn rates in winter, than compared to a bush fire in summer !!
the native animals have no problems surviving a back burn operation in the normal season, because its a SLOW AND LOW TEMPERATURE BURN.
you have a bush fire in summer, and the intense heat, high winds will spread quickly and burn super hot because the bush has been locked up !!
fuel loads havnt been reduced, trees are dense compared to pre european settlement, and therefore fierce fires that spread fast that kill both animals and humans.
dont you know that aborigines used fire as a land management tool for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.. and it worked every time.
its your attitude of locking it up, that is where we are at.
you realy have no idea, yet you say youve fought bush fires, and been on the ground..
ooh you vote for the greens too i bet.
youd rather see their pest implementation of catch, sterilise and release of feral cats..
its a friggin joke, the time, money and effort into this soo called program currently running in sydney is a joke.
they say their all for saving native animals, yet dont remove the caught feral cats that do the most damage, theyd rather let them go and wait 10years for them to sterilise out, PFFT.
like whos going to keep trapping the feral cats ?
their is 18million of them in this country, thats just cats alone.
the bush needs to be burnt, every 3 to 5 years, sensitive high country areas need cattle grazing like they did for over a 100 years.
mountain cattlemen know about their land, its not just their livelyhood, but its their home, and generations have been doing the same thing.
they keep the tracks open, fencing, and removing pests..
at a saving to the tax payer, as well as keeping the grass low to prevent bushfires.

living next to bushland is a hazard, YES but proper management and routine burning reduces the risk imensly.
where it can be safely managed, and NOT RISK LIVES.

currently that is not happening, and the results are loss of human life. as well as buildings, livestock and native animals.

How dare you call me a "FOOL". I am nobody's fool. And nor are the millions of informed and experienced people who share my perspective.

Yes, I see humans as a destructive threat. Humans are the most destructive species on the face of this planet and have proven we can not live in harmony with nature in such large numbers. I am often ashamed of being human because of what we have done to nature and each other.

There is pre-glacial geological evidence of human habitation in the Kosciuszko NP. Let's round it out to 200,000 years (potentially making this continent the cradle of humanity) and look at how much white Australian's have changed the environment in 200 odd years.

Yes Val, the concept of humans being part of the environment was the hardest thing to get my head around at uni. I tried but failed because all I could see was the damage and obliteration of natural habitats, extinction of species, crowds. I grew up watching ski resorts and the government slowly but steadily compromising national parks and the protection of the environment. It is hypocritical that i love spending so much time in nature but I leave no trace.

I am Worimi. I have inherited the responsibility of story teller, not only for Worimi but for many nations because there are so few still in harmony with the land and the dreamtime. The spirits of our ancestors and land, the spirits of dreaming, are still here, they will always be here and they are not happy either.

I am also intelligent enough to research my opinions, brave enough to stand up for what i believe and optimistic that we'll conserve more of our environment by locking it away.

Mountainman, calling someone a fool for their opinions is rude.

Terra has every right to her opinion and has some valid points. Agree that areas do need to be set aside as wilderness, just don't agree that they should be state forests next to populated areas.

Do agree that some people should not be allowed to run around willy-nilly with firearms, however I believe there is a place for truly professional shooters.

If there's a fool here Terra it certainly isn't you.

No Terra you are not a FOOL but I would say that some of your comments don't sit well with some of the people here.

A comment like:

"I see humans as a destructive threat. Humans are the most destructive species on the face of this planet and have proven we can not live in harmony with nature in such large numbers. I am often ashamed of being human because of what we have done to nature and each other."

I for one, don't agree with the gist of this comment, I embrace the social and technological advances the human race has bought to the world. I like my home comforts, fresh food, clean water, electricity, roads, cars, computers etc, NONE of which would be here without some exploitation of nature.

Humane intervention has also helped in the ecological system. Take for example the Toolale Station purchase, while done for good intentions of returning water to the MDB the following turned out to be true:

"Three years after the federal government led the purchase of the 91,000-hectare property to release its irrigated water back to the river system, the dams and irrigation channels are still in place - though their decommissioning was a key part of the environmental plan - the Herald has confirmed.

An ''infrastructure decommissioning plan'' drawn up by engineering consultants Aurecon in 2009 found there were environmental obstacles to scrapping the dams and channels because a new ecology has grown in the 150 years since the station was established. Also, a complete decommissioning would cost $79 million."

So Terra, when you travel this great country think about the people who built the roads, man the service stations, grow your food and provide the technologies which enable for you to do it.

And I hope you find your marbles and a good life.

Cheers

Lyn

The evidence seems to support your comment Terra - there is little doubt humans are the most destructive species ever to have occupied this planet. Our total inability to control our own population is but one example, but there are many many more, including our destructive and unsustainable attitude to resource exploitation. The most alarming aspect of this is that the destruction of habitat and massive resource depletion has happened in a VERY VERY short time - both in human terms and also obviously in planet time.

The enormous pressure being placed on resources (water, food, timber, fish, oil, minerals .... just about everything you can think of) has coincided with the most rapid advances in society ever - many for the better of course. Prof David Suzuki among others has been warning about the unsustainability of "growth" for decades but we are driven by greed, need, and our inability to look beyond our own lifetimes to demand and expect bigger, better, more. Not all societies have this attitude, or luck, as we know.

Of course it's far from all doom and gloom - our increased knowledge gives us the power to repair, regrow, ameliorate etc (when things get bad enough and we decide to pull together that is). The worrying thing for some of us in this country is the apparently growing propensity for thumbing our noses at scientific data which doesn't suit us for some reason. Whether it be global warming, the loss of forest, depletion of fish stocks etc we'll generally only act when things get desperate. How often have you heard this reason offered as a reason for not taking certain actions: "I have great faith in the ability of humans to adjust and find answers to our problems in the future?"

Most people in this country are adequately educated and have enough access to good information to be able to acknowledge that we will individually and as a group leave a huge footprint when we finally return to dust. Recognising that fact is the first step (one we don't seem to have reached in Australia yet), taking action as a society is even further down the line.

We are very lucky to live in this time on earth and we ought to at least recognise it even if we aren't prepared to "put something in the bank for the future". If the last 50 years is anything to go by conditions for most occupants of the planet will change enormously in the next century and I doubt they will be as benign or plentiful as they currently are.

I don't believe that you can separate humans from nature. We are part of it like it or not. I also believe that everything we do has to be natural or we can't do it. We build a spaceship, a spider builds a web. If we bend things too far from what the system can stand, then it will be us who is destroyed. Nature will be fine, it has all the time in the world. There would be other casualties though, but then 99% of species that ever existed are extinct, and you can't hang that on us. If any species gets too dominant then the system is out of balance and that species is toast. It's probably why there aren't intergalactic spaceliners zipping around in plain sight all over the place given that there have been billions of years for intelligent life forms to evolve. Look up Fermi's Paradox.

Love that title
I have called them the Parks and Gardens over here.
Been a member of CFS for nearly 40 years and wont go or supply my workers to those fires during business hours, as it has become hurry up and wait, while decisions are made to do something.
If the fire is going into the farming community they can go.
Cheers
Charlie

That does not surprise me at all. We the over regulated, run by minority Australians. I do wonder where all this will end up!
David

Well aware of the City attitude of shooting in national parks.
A very different story from farmers that live close to national parks about the uncontrolled breeding of feral animals in national parks.
Whilst I do not like the idea of camping near people with guns I forget that it was a very common thing when I was young with no issues and a lot less controlled.
1080 is a very cruel poison.

Honky

David...........need the `agree' button!!! LOL Yep, have to agree, we are getting squeezed by legislation and I believe our rights are being impinged. There are various issues to do with our hobbies ie. 4WD, camping, exploring, that are being legislated against, sometimes by the misinformed and ignorant. They just want to stop us having fun. At the end of the day, you don't ban the use of cars because of the minority of Drunks that drink and drive. I hate the way it feels like the majority are sometimes penalised for the sins of the minority.

You can't get away with that generalisation David. Give us some examples. As we all know well the great majority of regulations in most areas of society are well-reasoned and based on sound knowledge and evidence.

If you are really interested readhere for info from the Bushfire CoOperative Research Ctr. I've had some dealings with their staff and research during my time with the brigade and they some very good stuff in relation to the effects of fire on the built and natural environment.

Agree but who are the intelligent people? I work in a practical industry ( construction) and constantly find that the 'intelligent people' are the profoundly stupid ones in practical common sense terms
Remember it was these intelligent experts that gave us the cane toad, rabbits etc. These people were meant to be at the pointy end of our intelligent society and just show how little we understand nature

Alby, please think a bit more broadly. I suppose it was "practical" as opposed to "intelligent" people who brought you television and internet and smart phones, modern motor vehicles, medical breakthroughs and the list goes on....

Rabbits probably arrived with the first fleet, and cane toads arrived in the 1950s when the idea of biological control was seen as minor scientific miracle. Practical people have wonderful things to contribute, but so do intelligent people - they are not mutually exclusive and some fortunate folk are both intelligent and practical! And all are human and make mistakes.

Cheers,

Val

Val , I understand where you are coming from and my previous statement was broad brushed and overly simplistic but on both of the above disasters that I referred to your explanation is exactly what I am saying. At the time, be it first fleet or the 50's the people who made those decisions were at the pointy end of intelligence in society and no date history will look back at the stupid decisions we have made in present times.
My point is that often the people who will make the decisions on " managing mother nature" do not really have a handle on the situation but hold that position of power or influence.
We should be looking to our indigineous brothers and learn from them rather than trying to justify a point of view with computer modeling and software programs

Hi

Seems to be some confusion between "intelligence" and "knowledge" here. All humans are intelligent...some people have knowledge on "practical" things..some on other matters. If the people who introduced various exotic species into Australia had the knowledge of what affect they would have in the long term you would have to assume they wouldn't have gone through with it (if they did anyway it wouldn't have been because they were un-intelligent). Issue here is that some people think they have the knowledge on a subject that others don't...nothing about intelligence at all...and clearly some people don't have the knowledge they think they have irrespective of their intelligence.

Cheers
Greg

Fair call Greg
My posts should say "supposedly knowledgable "