The inital response by the NSW Minister for Climate Change, environment and Water is clearly indicating that the several organisations that have roll over funds and the capacity to purchase land are fully committed and operate indipendently from the government. "The Department initiatives will focus on generating community awareness, building business partnerships,identifying investment priorities, establishing administration arrangements, and commencing pilot projects.Some funds will be used to complement the work of Catchment Management Authorities and other organisations, by providing landowners and managers with incentives and mechanisms to improve conservation management and restore landscapes and ecosystems".(Ref. reply by Minister dated 5 July 2007 to Gianni D'Addario

The response by the Friends of Oolong (FOO)to the Minister is that where the nature heritage and conservation value of a vegetation remnant is undisputably demonstrated and there is a large environmental organisation ( in this case the FOO)committed to its maintenance in cooperation with the National Park and Wildlife Service (at considerable saving to the government) and with the remnant used for education and study the proposal for making the remnant a Nature Reserve should be considered at least as a pilot project towards setting some priority to the establishment of more Nature Reserves on private land.
Gianni D'Addario
President
Friends of Oolong

So, we are expected to believe that the millions of hectares of native forest on private land is all isolated remnant. The vast majority of private native forest in NSW is well connected to other habitats.

Indeed, this notion that native species will only connect with each other under a linked canopy of native vegetation is pure bollocks. It is a new form of the old misrepresentation by omission ploy. Maps of native vegetation are prepared that exclude all non-native vegetation, all small clumps and paddock trees, all watering points and even young native regrowth, leaving the impression that there are wide, impassable gaps in the landscape.

But the simple facts are that most species, including listed species like Koalas, have no problem crossing a kilometre wide pastured gap when they need to. This is especially so for adolescents intent on getting laid.

A recent threatened Species Act "8 point test of significance" carried out in my own region found that the only species that were unable to cross a 1000m gap were the skinks and frogs that are normally linked by creek lines etc, not forest canopy. Forest canopy was irrelevant for this small minority that regards normal ground cover as "canopy".

Furthermore, many species not only traverse orchards and crops but often live, feed and breed in them. So how can something be classed as non-habitat if a large part of the resident species pursue their life cycle imperatives in it?

And in fact, many of the supposed "gaps" in forest cover on private land are the very reason why the habitat remains viable. Another word for these gaps is the term, "firebreak". A 100 metre gap in a tree line can make all the difference in a wildfire while posing zero connection problems for the resident species.

Unless the issue of connectivity is addressed in terms of the size of gaps, real gaps not imaginary ones, for each species, then the issue is being dealt with improperly. No policy can be developed on the basis of a partial and fragmentary grasp of the brief.

Perseus,
While I agree with what you say and I think this organisations efforts would be better spent in getting fid of foxes and cats if protection of native wildlife is their goal. Maybe we should have a closer look at what they say to see if there are any benefits for landowners. This in view of the NSW governments policy regarding the sale of crown roads.

Some 4 years ago the Government, in a money grabbing exercise, decided to sell crown roads or charge high rents for them. The only way of avoiding one or the other was/is for landowners to fence the roads out. The NFF negotiated a stay of 3 years, because of drought and now another 3 years stay gives further breathing space.

I feel for those that have crown roads bisecting their property as they are caught one way or another and will be up for substantial costs. In my own case, there is a crown road on one side but is just rubbish and no commercial value. I intend to fence it out, to minimal standard, as on principle I will not pay an exorbitant rent or buy something that is valueless.

I hope the NFF gets to see this proposal as anything that can change the present crown roads policy is worth looking at.

Also when these people are collecting native tree seeds, I hope they give a lot of consideration to feed tree species for Koalas. Like most I have a soft spot for Koalas and they never did anyone any harm.

Oh, one peed on a politician once which is also a point in their favour.

Koala's peeing on pollies - I like that one!

Got to remember too that not every animal is a forest dweller. Animals also wander far from their normal habitats - your cant regulate their behaviour. Am example, last year my father found an echidna on his farm. He's been there for 69 years and never seen one (as he spends a lot of time on foot, more so than most farmers). The family have been there since 1898 and this was only the third one ever seen. 50kms further south a wombat has taken up residence where no wombats have ever been recorded.

I dont dispute the fact that retention of some native area is a good thing, but remember that if we want private property used for public good (environment benefits), then the PUBLIC must be willing to pay for such.

Good point, Country Gal. Over the range the majority of species are woodland species which actually exploit the grassland food chains rather than the tree based food chains. In fact, it is a mix of both but the further west one goes the less "sustainable" this green tree fetish becomes.

Furthermore, much of the grazed woodlands also have added watering points etc, and these have not only boosted Kangaroo numbers but also a whole range of bird, mammal and amphibian species that have expanded their range and increased their populations. They also play a key part in reducing the severity of drought impacts and enhancing survival rates.

There are some really splendid habitat improvement stories. Such as the micro-bats that now make their nests in the holes drilled in fence posts for the wire. These nest sites can be right next to the crops and the smorgasbord of insects that gather there. and for these little guys, adequate connectivity is achieved by a line of fence posts and a regularly cropped paddock.

I cannot escape the feeling that this interesting article has been somewhat mis-titled. Perhaps a better title could have been "State government drops the ball in cost-free wildlife habitat preservation opportunity".

What the article highlights is a seeming departure from prudent preservation of land in the form of Crown road reserves, in the relatively uncleared state in which it may have largely long remained. Whilst there may well be pockets of native vegetation on what is contended to be marginal land in private ownership, these pockets have been sustained at private expense, and self-evidently sustained in that condition for an extended time. Just about all clearing on private land occurred long ago, with little, if any occurring presently.

Banjo seems to have highlighted the dereliction of duty that is really going on. It appears the State government is trying to force adjoining private landholders to rent or purchase Crown land that is of little, if any, value to those private landholders. In short, a standover tactic!

It appears the NSW State government has identified in the figurative 'hollow log' represented by its custodianship of road reserves a cash cow for which it thinks it has a captive market. The problem is that in taking this line, it is putting at risk the literal hollow logs of wildlife habitat. If private landholders are to be forced to purchase, rent, or fence out these areas of vegetation remnant presently on Crown land, it appears likely that only a degradation of these remnant habitat corridors,for whatever real importance they may have, will be the result.

Country Gal has pointed to the prime consideration in this issue: the need to address the issue of equity. She rightly says "remember that if we want private property used for public good (environment benefits), then the PUBLIC must be willing to pay for such." All of them, not just the private landholders who have already preserved the pockets of native vegetation at their own expense over the years.

Interesting link within the article to the FOO home page and its site meter.

Dear Perseus,
Go to our website: “Habitat/remnants” the maps show the wide gap between the national parks in our region. We are volunteers and work the best way we can and with no government assistance. In “Oolong History” are the reports on the local condition and management plan required. Native ecosystems are preserved on marginal land and cemeteries! And our aim is to re-vegetate where possible with the endemic species. The canopy is only part of the issue and is the problem in one of the remnants which we call “pristine block”.

We reconstruct the native environment adding endemic shrubs and trees in preference to exotic plants. Native birds need native shrubs and native trees need birds to remove insect pest. It is not right to just plant any tree. The ratio should be one tree/two shrubs.

Of course birds fly. But it has been proven that they prefer to stay close to the breeding place. One of our corridors is also a critical habitat to three endangered species of birds (see our web site).

Anyway what is wrong in having small communities and landholders working together to reconstruct the natural habitat locally? In large areas of agriculture land we have still crown roads and we promote their use to link remnants in the reconstruction of the original environment. This process will be supported by landholder who will benefit financially from the Carbon Smart project by Landcare and who will widen the strips by planting shrubs and trees from seeds collected locally, germinated and donated by the FOO under the Oolong Challenge.

In your opinion what we are doing is irrelevant and exotic trees are a good substitute and since bird fly and koala can cross wide pasture there is no problem.

Agree with your last paragraph. Our approach of reconstruction is for the whole.
We bait for foxes and wild cats at our cost as charged by RLPB.
This reply goes also for Banjo and Country Gal. Our web site gives the answers to all their questions.
Gianni

You missed the point, Gianni. You have a fixed notion of what is "right" and "connected" that the wildlife often do not share. Of course birds like to remain in their territory but that is not the issue in questions of conectivity. Connectivity is about the capacity of young adults who are leaving the parental territory to transit to other locations to mate and create their own home range.

It is this wider movement that must take place to maintain the genetic diversity of the species. And clearly, this capacity to journey across the landscape is not a function of connected canopy cover, endemism or ratios of shrub to tree species.

Birds, in particular, may well desire certain attributes in a home territory but to suggest that they are not capable of seeing a clump of bush 5km away, and flying from paddock tree to telephone pole and windmill to get there is plain silly.

There have been instances where two colonies of flying foxes, seperated by extensive pasture, would meet in a single cluster of trees in the middle at mating time. They were "connected" by that small cluster even though it was not recognised as part of the habitat of either group.

And for my part, I am in the process of buying a paper road because it is the only way to ensure that it is managed properly. At the moment it is a very dangerous, neglected, fire corridor that threatens the safety and ecological integrity of the properties on both sides of it. The Crown has repeatedly demonstrated that it is a very untrustworthy neighbour and your web site does nothing to convince me that your group would be any better.

I question the usefulness of physical links between patches of bushland. As Perseus says; many animal species are capable of crossing open areas.

Gene-flow in plants also continues between isolated patches as most pollinators will cross the gaps, carrying pollen with them.

I see the issues of feral animals, weeds and fire management in small patches of bush as being much more significant than the planting of new corridors or the maintenance of existing ones.

If bush blocks are so far apart that organism and gene exchange are minimal or non-existent, then some pretty long corridors would have to be established to significantly change that. I can’t imagine that very narrow degraded road-verge strips of vegetation would help all that much.

The record for the Australian environment is pretty shameful. With one of the highest rates of fauna extinction in the world; the appalling logging of the native forests of an ancient dry continent; the polluted rivers and streams - it is indeed a miracle that any fauna survive.

Any efforts to retain vegetation remnants needs to be supported The animals are losing habitat on a daily basis. They, like us, are being forced to evolve and adapt to more crowded conditions and ensuing problems.

Australians in general live in some kind of robotic anaesthesia in terms of the fragility and vulnerability of our environment. I commend Friends of Oolong for their efforts - community lives and as long as caring people walk their talk, we all have hope. Suemitch

Sue Mitch if you did your homework you would find out that 17 of the 18 recorded mammal extinctions since European settlement lived in arid and/or semi-arid environments where native forest logging is not a feature. The other was the Tas tiger which lived in forested environments. Its extinction is attributed to persecution from farmers.

So why the link of native forestry to the extinction record? Mindless blabbering and rhetoric is fine when voicing your opinion, but if you truly want to engage with people, take the effort to understand what you are talking about.

I challenge you to name just one species of plant or animal that has become extinct due to native forest logging. Just one. (the rules are it is not acceptable to simply go to a greenie web site and quote their hyperbole verbatim - refer to scientific proof).

Hi Tragedy! Good name...

Just go to <akf@savethekoala.com> to get the answer to your derogatory statement. We are not concerend with cutting trees in plantations. we are trying to contain that madness by revegeteting the depleted original ecosystems where a balance between native trees and understorey is essential for our native fauna and flora. Broaden your vision!

Gianni

With respect Gianni, I would claim my vision is broader than yours. It is a bit hard to read an email address you posted but I did look at the Aust Koala Foundation site. The problem with these nutters is they play up the violin strings to high pitch to raise funds for their cause but achieve nothing. I saw first hand the politics behind the battles between the various save the koala groups whilst living at Coffs Harbour in the early 90s. They are a scam and not dissimilar in their motives and modus operandi to the Wildderness Society, ACF etc. They tug at peoples heart strings to remain relevant.

By the way koals are not extinct and Gianni you failed to point out an animal or plant that has become extinct from forestry activity.

In fact I will give you a good news story on koalas. They are now abundant in the European artifact known as the Pilliga scrub. As far back as the 1920s, the locals hardly saw any koalas in that area. Since the 1970s their numbers have been increasing. Forest management of the cypress has created the conditions that they love. However, forestry is now down to piddly levels all because the bureaucrats reckon they are preserving a forest community that existed pre-1750 but they have no idea that it was the farmers (and the rabbits and drought and the foresters) who created this beautiful area post settlement. And we let them make decisions on our environment - god help the environment!

Strong Link Between Land Clearance and Climate Change Found in Queensland.
Major new research from Queensland, Australia "has found a direct link between land-clearing and climate change," [ark] and that land clearing triggers hotter droughts [ark]. Areas throughout southern Queensland cleared of native vegetation were found to have lost 12 percent of their summer rainfall and to have experienced an average 2C rise in temperatures. The study found that land clearing was just as significant in terms of climate change [search] as greenhouse gas production from fossil fuels.

Should these findings hold up and are found to be generalized throughout Australia and other areas globally clearing remaining natural vegetation, it would suggest a major revision in climate change policy-making is due. It is not enough to just focus upon greenhouse gas emissions, but maintaining natural vegetation through preservation, conservation and restoration may be an equally important policy response if global heating is to stopped...