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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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