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.

Marohasy redefines "wilderness" out of existence.

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.

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.

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.

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.