LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 05-08-2012, 12:41 AM   #1
Inonanialry

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
458
Senior Member
Default Australia's Extinction Crisis
Some will likely object to the alarmist nature of the headline, but for my part that it might accurately have been said at every point in Australia's white history at least.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-0...crisis/3995946

"A Queensland ecologist is calling for a rethink of Australia's conservation strategy to combat an "extinction crisis".

Professor Hugh Possingham, an ecologist from the University of Queensland and the Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, says selling some of the country's national parks is one option.

..."
Inonanialry is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 12:55 AM   #2
HawksBurnDown

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
695
Senior Member
Default
One problem I see is national parks also have(?) to take certain heritage values into account and that can create conflicts of interest. My personal view is the natural environment should come first and only when that is well protected and conserved, then other considerations like our early human history can be taken into account.

{snip}

* Please excuse my language, I usually don't resort to name calling, but this joker makes my blood boil and the word I really want to use would see me banned from this place for years.
History is what helps the science work.


C'mon it will probably simply be represented as f***w**
HawksBurnDown is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 01:19 AM   #3
RooxiaNof

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
552
Senior Member
Default
... Professor Hugh Possingham, an ecologist from the University of Queensland and the Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, says selling some of the country's national parks is one option.

..."
Privatising National Parks? That would be sad.
RooxiaNof is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 01:34 AM   #4
zoppereurvito

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
520
Senior Member
Default
Hugh does raise some interesting points that will no doubt make for an interesting debate here and in the wider sphere if it gets the airing it deserves so it can be discussed. I agree with his point that it's hard to get government funding because many people seem to rather have taxes spent on baby bonuses and other middle-class welfare than on the environment. Ask 1000 people if they support looking after the environment and you'd probably get 950-odd saying yes. But then ask them would they be happy to pay extra taxes be spent on environment (perhaps in a manner similar to how the Medicare levy operates) and the number of positive responses would drop significantly I'd suggest.

One part of his argument does puzzle me though.

Professor Possingham says that could be better done by wildlife groups.


"The fact that the Australian Wildlife Conservancy Bush Heritage Trust and Trust for Nature have emerged and prospered over the last decade is some evidence of a response to that threat," he said.


"However I don't think the general public is now really quite prepared.


"They thought that all conservation was done by the government. Now we've got to move to a new world where maybe half, maybe more than half of all the conservation of Australia's wildlife needs to be done not by the government, but by individuals in society."
If governments aren't going to be a part of management and a source of funding, how are the groups he mentions going to get the required funds. No way could it be paid for by donations from concerned citizens or via the charging of visitation fees etc., so I think he really needs to explain that more clearly.

I totally agree with the second part though, it's up to each and every one of us to do our bit in whatever way we can and not expect other to simply do it for us. Slightly off-topic, but it does relate to this story in a sense. I was a subscriber to an email newsletter put out by some folks here in the shire because at first I got taken in by their concern on council spending and also moves afoot to rezone certain areas of land in the shire. Wasn't long before I came to realise the people involved in putting the newsletter together had nothing but complaints about how much the council charges in rates and the lack of services. Their concerns about rezoning appeared at face value to be legitimate worries about the environment, but after I did a bit of detailed reading from various sources, I soon came to realise the only thing they were really worried about was a possible drop in property values. I fronted one of these people not that long ago at a meeting I attended and suggested that if they put only half the amount of effort into helping fix problems as they did in constantly complaining, then council might have $$$ available to address some of the issues they were concerned about and be able to provide much needed services. I don't think I'm on his Christmas card list any more...
zoppereurvito is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 03:15 AM   #5
HawksBurnDown

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
695
Senior Member
Default
selling some of the country's national parks is one option.

..."
but but, they knocked John cat hat Walmsley back?

Would Steve Irwin's wildlife warriors buy them?

Hugh does raise some interesting points that will no doubt make for an interesting debate here and in the wider sphere if it gets the airing it deserves so it can be discussed. ... snip

I totally agree with the second part though, it's up to each and every one of us to do our bit in whatever way we can and not expect other to simply do it for us.
Yes.. It all comes down to us. Government has spent a lot of money trying to get us to be more careful in how we view, cost and utilise such things as water and energy.
HawksBurnDown is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 05:24 AM   #6
chechokancho

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
465
Senior Member
Default
From the link:

"He says Australia's ecological funding is five to 10 times short of what would be needed to stop extinctions.

But he says years of campaigns for meaningful increases have only proven that it is not a high priority for voters, so it is unrealistic to expect more government funding.

The Australian Conservation Foundation's Paul Sinclair disagrees, saying an increase is exactly what is needed.

"The level of funding provided for the protection of our natural life support systems is insufficient," he said.

Dr Sinclair says ecological campaigners should not settle for the current share of government funding.

He says to do so would be selling the environment short."

1. I am very much against reducing the area of designated National Parks.
2. I think we could increase the natural reserve system, eg covenents and designating/creating ecological linkages.
3. Increased funding should be sought to protect habitat/ecosystems/processes to ensure we have a sustainable environment/community/planet.

Is this one of those articles where something radical is suggested just to get the debate for more funding happening?
Which NP's does he think we can do without??
chechokancho is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 05:44 AM   #7
HawksBurnDown

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
695
Senior Member
Default
The whole idea of having National Parks is to attempt to preserve that which we'd be lost without.

I rarely speak my real opinions out loud but in essence I believe that the earth is a national park and we should be treating it as such.
HawksBurnDown is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 06:19 AM   #8
zoppereurvito

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
520
Senior Member
Default
The whole idea of having National Parks is to attempt to preserve that which we'd be lost without
One problem I see is national parks also have(?) to take certain heritage values into account and that can create conflicts of interest. My personal view is the natural environment should come first and only when that is well protected and conserved, then other considerations like our early human history can be taken into account.

Watching Two on the Great Divide a couple of weeks back illustrated my point perfectly. First Tim and John were shown one of the last 50 remaining wild Corroboree Frogs and damage done by horses running wild. Next we see that tosser* Peter Cochran raving on about the right to have brumbies getting around in the Kosciuszko National Park. The group he represents is SMBUG, the Snowy Mountains Bush Users Group and their website makes for interesting reading. Seem far more focused on human heritage and right than the native wildlife found in national parks. I'm not knocking all members or all their thoughts, only the twit they have representing them.

* Please excuse my language, I usually don't resort to name calling, but this joker makes my blood boil and the word I really want to use would see me banned from this place for years.
zoppereurvito is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 06:23 AM   #9
chechokancho

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
465
Senior Member
Default
I totally agree Woolly!
chechokancho is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 06:27 AM   #10
HawksBurnDown

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
695
Senior Member
Default
why is this post.. suddenly listed as post #2.. in a thread with #9 posts?
http://www.abcforums.com/showthread....ll=1#post15034
HawksBurnDown is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 06:46 AM   #11
zoppereurvito

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
520
Senior Member
Default
why is this post.. suddenly listed as post #2.. in a thread with #9 posts?
http://www.abcforums.com/showthread....ll=1#post15034
NFI, forum software playing up again by looks.

Hope it don't happen often, reading replies to posts before the posts themselves might make thing interesting to say the least.
zoppereurvito is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 07:09 AM   #12
warrgazur

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
586
Senior Member
Default
Governments of all persuasions are totally gutless when it comes to the environment, it always comes second when compared to human or economic values. The only way their minds will change to become more receptive to people concerned or interested in the environment is to vote green, only when the Greens become a strong political party will the others start thinking there might be votes in the environment and only then will they allocate reasonable funds toward it.
warrgazur is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 07:24 AM   #13
HawksBurnDown

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
695
Senior Member
Default
Governments of all persuasions are totally gutless when it comes to the environment, it always comes second when compared to human or economic values. The only way their minds will change to become more receptive to people concerned or interested in the environment is to vote green, only when the Greens become a strong political party will the others start thinking there might be votes in the environment and only then will they allocate reasonable funds toward it.
Let's face it.. the media runs things .. in that if something is mediaworthy in the eyes of the great reporting gods.. we ge it shoved down our throats.. OK so NO DAMS got a big enough percentage of the vote(though unofficial) to create the Franklin River fiasco scenario which led to the formation of the Greens.
at that time and other times of green significance to the media.. the popular consensus is often at a % rate higher for the environment than the economy.. When a government has the media attention over economy..
the economy rates higher than the environment in opinion polls.
HawksBurnDown is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 08:00 AM   #14
Buincchotourbss

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
479
Senior Member
Default
There is so much that could be said in this thread !!! I guess H.P. and his like are arguing that what we are doing now is largely not working and a different approach is possibly needed.
Not sure about selling off national parks is the answer.
Too often not caring for the environment is related to the contact we have with it. Mostly we are isolated from the outside world by windows and the closest that many get nature is though the images on the TV set. Mind you getting more people out into the natural environment could cause its own set of problems.
I think we need to get back to the basics where people in general have a greater awareness of what is around us and see the need to protect it for its own sake. Largely we are too isolated from the environment we are so dependent on.

My rant for the night before some shut eye.
Buincchotourbss is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 08:21 AM   #15
warrgazur

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
586
Senior Member
Default
There is so much that could be said in this thread !!! I guess H.P. and his like are arguing that what we are doing now is largely not working and a different approach is possibly needed.
Not sure about selling off national parks is the answer.
Too often not caring for the environment is related to the contact we have with it. Mostly we are isolated from the outside world by windows and the closest that many get nature is though the images on the TV set. Mind you getting more people out into the natural environment could cause its own set of problems.
I think we need to get back to the basics where people in general have a greater awareness of what is around us and see the need to protect it for its own sake. Largely we are too isolated from the environment we are so dependent on.

My rant for the night before some shut eye.
If people were that interested in the environment, they would vote for it, by not voting for the two major parties that only play it lip service. Unless people act, then things are not going to change.
warrgazur is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 01:18 PM   #16
numinertyuesk

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
371
Senior Member
Default
Very ironic title for the organisation. " the Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions". I suppose that is newspeak.
We need more land set aside for conservation, not less. This guy has fallen for the old fallacy that humans can "bio-engineer" a better environment. When you think in the long term, all we can do is conserve habitat - not piecemeal but wholesale. We already have the extinction crisis, and a lot more animals and plants are doomed. You just have to look at the Freycinet - an eco lodge in one of our best national parks, really the beginning of the end, this would be much more common if national parks were privatised.
Our environmental decisions need to be made for the long term, geological time, not short term political decisions.
numinertyuesk is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 01:23 PM   #17
Inonanialry

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
458
Senior Member
Default
His position become as one of the shock troops for the developers, I fear.
And yes, I remember the Freycinet Lodge, I think it was called.

Had we no National Parks at all set aside by visionaries of the past, then this private development would seem like a step in the right direction, but to go backwards, hurts.

It's true though, that as long as these things are low on the general population's list of priorities, then politicians will not lead on the issue.

I can't reconcile being this form of "realistic" with what I believe the earth needs for its health (and so, not coincidentally) our own. And of course I do really know tht a few or a lot of National Parks is not all the earth needs, but if we cannot even do this much in a wealthy country like Australia ...
Inonanialry is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 06:47 PM   #18
zoppereurvito

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
520
Senior Member
Default
And of course I do really know tht a few or a lot of National Parks is not all the earth needs, but if we cannot even do this much in a wealthy country like Australia ...
I watched a talk last night that talked about many issues that could fit into this thread quite well, but I think I'll start a thread on it because it involves much more than the topic this thread focuses on.

One interesting point raised was years ago the conservation movement in Australia were aiming to have 5% of Australia protected in NPs and other reserves. They thought this would be ample to protect species and habitat and end human caused extinctions, but as of today there is 11% of Australia protected and yet we know many problems continue.
zoppereurvito is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 08:13 PM   #19
zoppereurvito

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
520
Senior Member
Default
Governments of all persuasions are totally gutless when it comes to the environment, it always comes second when compared to human or economic values. The only way their minds will change to become more receptive to people concerned or interested in the environment is to vote green, only when the Greens become a strong political party will the others start thinking there might be votes in the environment and only then will they allocate reasonable funds toward it.
I totally agree that people need to become more environmentally aware, but your argument confuses me a little. You say that in order for people "to become more receptive to people concerned or interested in the environment is to vote green". But how the hell are you going to get them to vote Green if they don't understand or give a toss about the environment to begin with? Seems you're putting the cart before the horse somewhat.

Very interested to hear your ideas on how to encourage people to change their mindset and thinking as I do agree it needs to be done, just that I'm not sure how to go about it.
zoppereurvito is offline


Old 05-08-2012, 08:53 PM   #20
HawksBurnDown

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
695
Senior Member
Default
Again, let's face it.. The media has the carbon tax in its sights.. Someone needs to find a slogan that gives back green shock to the shock and awe campaign..
HawksBurnDown is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:40 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity