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).