The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The battle for the red gum forests > Comments

The battle for the red gum forests : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 1/9/2008

A Ramsar reserve would allow people to work, live and play in the river red gum forests of Victoria under a more contemporary notion of wilderness.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Good to see something going on about the river redgums. All of these grazing permits along river frontage should be removed immediately. Public land along the victorian side of the river should remain as public land. A need for extensive revegetation after years of neglect from graziers, and a registration system is needed from public members when entering a river frontage area.
Posted by jason60, Monday, 1 September 2008 11:34:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marohasy redefines "wilderness" out of existence.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Monday, 1 September 2008 12:56:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again Jennifer Morahasy seems happy to pick and choose facts to suit her own purposes and in the process distorts the truth. I was in the Barmah forest last week, and its true that the river red gum regrowth is problematic. But from what I learnt while there, the solution offered here will not improve the situation.

Traditionally, the forest received flood waters in late winter, and was dry during the summer. We have now created a situation where the river is low during winter and is highest in summer when the irrigation flows come through. Many species of fish and waterbirds were dependent on this natural cycle and our reversal of it has had a negative impact on them. Therefore, its not simply a case of getting more water in- to have maximum benefit in promoting native biodiversity in the forest it needs to come through at the right time. In addition, sending it through the regulators is completely contrary to the way that natural flows occurred; flooding of the forest is supposed to be over-bank. Morohasy makes mention of the dry times but not the over-allocation of water over the last few decades in a relatively wet period which has led us into the situation we are in today. In 2005-2006 the Barmah forest had the largest environmental flow ever in Autralia but it was still not even close to the level of flooding the forest would have received without human intervention.

Whilst burning may be traditional and is a possible solution to the problem of too much regrowth, the lack of burning is not the only reason for the problematic regrowth in the forest but is also a result of our systematic manipulation of the river flows through the forest.

Cattle grazing is completely unnatural and I fail to see how it has any conservation benefits and Morahasy makes no mention of what these might possibly be- it is certainly not 'wise use' of the forest.
Posted by la_1985, Monday, 1 September 2008 10:12:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re: la_1985
You have to recognise that the red gum forests are a highly disturbed environment that is effectively an island in the sea of an agricultural landscape. They are not in a remote area where few people go - they are used extensively by the surrounding population for all manner of things, and are exposed to all manner of unnatural pressures through their boundaries. Simply turning them all into national parks (as VEAC have recommended)won't solve this, particularly when the uses are already reasonably well managed, and something like 75% of the forests are already in public land categories where biodiversity conservation is the primary aim.

The category of a Ramsar Reserve would allow active management to continue instead of the 'lock-up-and-leave' national park alternative which typically results in less management and allows problems such as fire to proliferate.

More flooding will reinvigorate the forest however it is achieved. Sure the use of regulators to create artificial floods may not be natural, but as I said earlier, little about these forests is natural, and as one botanist said several years ago, these forests can never return to what they once were because too much has already changed within them and around them.

This is why controlled cattle grazing has a place, because the changes are now so set in place that without it, weed growth is likely to proliferate to an extent that will overwhelm the remaining elements of the natural flora.

This is just one example of where the simplistic 'one size fits all' approach to conservation that is national park declaration would reduce the management flexibility needed to get the best environmental outcome.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Tuesday, 2 September 2008 8:33:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Red gum forests need to be actively managed, if they are to remain as beautiful open forests as they are today. It is interesting to note that during the VEAC investigation, there were many comments regarding the beauty of the red gum forests. Red gum forests do not grow beautiful on their own; they are managed that way. If you wish to see a red gum forest that has been left to its own devices, then take a drive to Nyah and have a look. It's an absolute mess. This is what VEAC and the green movement want for all red gum forests in Victoria. The RRGEA Community & Conservation Plan provides a balanced approach for forest management. It is now time for common senses to prevail, where decisions are made based upon science and not politics.
Posted by Gum, Tuesday, 2 September 2008 8:41:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The trees are not going to mind how the water is delivered. Every stream running out of the Murray in this forest has a regulator. Opening them when the river is high is a very effective means of getting water into the forest.
This forest was created by the uplift of the Cadell Tilt which occurred in geologically recent times, probably after human occupation. The forest has been impacted by man since it was first formed.
Edward Curr, the first white settler in the area wrote of galloping through the forest which implies it was once much more open. He also wrote that the aboriginal inhabitants kept their campfires burning at all times. That required a considerable harvest of woody debris, consistent with his ability to gallop through the trees.
MWPOYNTER is right. Calling it a national park is not going to do anything positive.
Posted by David Joss, Tuesday, 2 September 2008 9:47:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer ,
As you probably know ,the Ramsar listed Gwydir Marshes Wetland felt the destructive power of the plough in 2003 .

A court case ensued, see http//www.environment.gov.au/epbc/compliance/judgements.html

For such powerfull farming companies and people such as wheat grower Ron Greentree ,to show such disregard and indifference for the environment values destroyed ,that the Ramsar Agreements are trying to protect, does not bode well for any redgum forest management that relies on observence of Ramsar Protection Principles.

Veac is trying to honestly protect ALL the values possible .

I think Jennifer prefers the Tourist picture of the river that does not really address the preservation of all the conservation values of the Park area at all. Biodiversity is not really required at all .

I can tell you my cattle will push over or eat every small wattle or other rare native shrub or grass that pokes it's head up .That's how cattle live .

One only has to drive along the River to see what little is left .
Posted by kartiya jim, Tuesday, 2 September 2008 11:52:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
kartiya jim, to be fair, few farmers have the means and power of Ron Greentree. Monetary fines were never going to dissuade him from his actions. The higher percentage of farmers and graziers though are forced into compliance with regulations whether they agree with them or not because they cannot afford the penalties. Cattle grazing wont strip the land if numbers are right. It be a case of yes you can continue to graze, but you have to halve the numbers over the current area.
Posted by Country Gal, Tuesday, 2 September 2008 12:14:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country Gal,
One would need to fence the river bank off at least few hundred metres out and good management and controlled burning of the bank replanted area and the entire Park would be vital .

With the rest, a thinning of the redgums will increase the size and habitat value and their drought tolerance and enable shrub and native grasses to be planted on denuded areas.

Light grazing with sheep has maintained the flora at the nearby Terrick Terrick National Park and could be a better option if need be .
The problems with tourist dogs may precude them .

Right now Parks Victoria and the DSE on the Victorian side are undermanned but a decent Park entry Fee could change that .

Possibly the National Park could gain considerable ongoing income from carbon trading to do works and maintenance.

Indigenous Groups must be included and benefit as managers with responsibiliy for transmission of their Cultural values to visitors as happens in many other parts of Australia.
Posted by kartiya jim, Wednesday, 3 September 2008 10:28:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The two plans represent two competing concepts of wilderness.”

One particular expert on propaganda said keep it simple and repeat it often, and I can’t help but think of that man when I hear people say “lock up and leave”. NO ONE group of people you call greenies, etc, has ever said, so far as I am aware (and I think they would be idiots if they did) that Barmah, for example, should not be an intensively managed forest – the question is how that forest is managed.

Anyone can see the forest is stuffed, and I would hope that people could see that a significant reason for it being stuffed is 150 years of mismanagement, which requires a balancing of the scales.

It is of course insulting, to many people, to suggest that these forests are “wilderness”, or empty cultural landscapes. There is not a place in that forest which is “empty”. However I would suggest that the two competing concepts that you are imagining are absolutely and completely FALSE and indicates a deplorable lack of insight on your part.

Indigenous groups (and by no means all) have been involved in negotiations with “green” groups as early as 1997. To suggest that those people advocating for the protection of that land are advocating for “tract of land without custodians” is really ridiculous.

continued...
Posted by roadsideservice, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 10:38:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another person here commented on Edward Curr in response to your article. Curr also wrote in Recollections… that he thought that the Barmah forest was some of the most managed land in the world (he in fact coined the term “firestick farming”), and whilst Curr is hardly reliable for so many reasons, he is not devoid of historical value.

What he provides is a snapshot of a time when the forest was well managed (because it had to be for people to survive) and what it was that stuffed it up. This is not to say that you need a Romantic, utopian fantasy that a pre-invasion world can be reborn, another management scheme is possible.

I find it fascinating that those actually believe in some mythical city greenies who want to “lock up and leave” these forests are the very same who want to lock up and leave the status quo as it is. I have many problems with VEAC, and I am not sure a national park, per se, is the way, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the way things are now.
Posted by roadsideservice, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 10:39:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear God,

Please explain to the forest worshippers and tree higgers how an Australian forest works.

Their 'lock it up and leave it' method of forest management led to the devastating Caledonia River fire in 1997 followed by the fires of 2003 and, still not understanding how the forest works, the utter devastation of the 2006 and 2007 fires. Oops, I forgot the Grampians.

Why, O Lord, do they hate the animals that live in the forest? Why do they want to see native flora and fauna incinerated? Why must their fires steril;ise so much fertile land?

National Parks, State Parks, wilderness, et;al. measuring over 2.5 million hectares have been sacrificed to their faith.

Thank you for Saint jennifer.
Posted by phoenix94, Saturday, 13 September 2008 6:12:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Phoenix94

Tree 'higgers' (sic) such as Dr Kingsley Dixon, director of the Western Australian botanic gardens understands (unlike you) how fire is a part of the ecology of Australia's environment and plays an important part in germination and in fertility of surface soil.

Suggest you edify yourself with the following:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_1147171.htm

"Many Australian plants, like the acacia, depend on the heat from fires to crack open their seeds before they can germinate.

But bushfire smoke can play an even bigger role in seed germination. So, since the 1990s scientists have been trying to identify which of the thousands of chemicals in bushfire smoke is the crucial trigger."

If you continue to accept Marohasy as an authority on anything environmental you will remain as ignorant as she.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 14 September 2008 10:01:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phoenix 94 ,

Poor fire management is the problem, not fire itself .

Open forested areas of great beauty and variety were maintained by Aboriginals all over Australia.

We invaded the place and changed the botanical balance by not burning, for fear of losing whitefellow assets either on four legs or fixed.

This had explorer Mitchell in the 1800's complaining that his wagons could not get easy passage across the terrain outside Sydney as the country was progressively eaten out and grasses were replaced by more invasive and less palatable woody species .
Posted by kartiya jim, Sunday, 14 September 2008 10:34:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy