07/20/2007
More Land To Be Abandoned In Parks
The Victorian Assessment Council claims four new national parks and billions of litres of water are needed to save the Murray River's dying river red gum forests,.
VEAC is right about the water and wrong about the parks. Tragically, Victoria is likely to get the parks and lose the forests.
Push For The Bush believes Premier Hymie Bracks wants to divert water around the Barmah Choke, a natural obstruction on the Murray River, which supplies the forests with water.
The council released its wetlands recommendations yesterday. Chairman Duncan Malcolm said there were significant areas of riverine forests with severely stressed and dying trees, and nearly 400 "threatened and near-threatened plant and animal species."
The key question is: How is the declaration of a national park going to save this environment?
Locals in the region are not surprised by the findings. It was no secret that VEAC had been ordered to recommend the creation of at least one new national park and only last year two community representatives, Audrey Dickinson and Peter Ellard resigned their participation in the VEAC process calling it a joke and others threatened to follow their example.
Locking the forests up in new national parks is not going to protect them but it does provide the state government with an excuse to neglect them by handing the responsibility over to nature.
Victoria's existing national parks are already like museums loaded with decaying exhibits.
There will be serious local community oppoosition to the VEAC recommendations. Another fight has begun.
Meanwhile, South Gippsland locals have pointed out that the proposed site for Victoria's first desalination plant is prone to serious flooding. While Steve Bracks issued heated denials pictures of the site under water were being supplied to the media.
You can shake your head in disbelief. Environmental management in Victoria under this government is a classic balls-up.
00:10 Posted in Blog | Permalink | Comments (9) | Email this
Comments
Locals in the region are actually very supportive; the yorta Yorta , traditional owners of the region are very happy at the proposals, as are the local environmental groups, the environmental farmers network and many others who live , work and play in the area.
I see there is no mention in your report that VEAC has found that DSE have been over logging the area by around 60 % or more, due to lack of growth rates from lack of flooding over the past decade. the report finds that the industry would have to be slashed by 60% even if no new parks were created.
Great opportunity fro agroforestry on the 90% cleared floodplains, offering landholders an income, and great opportunities for regional tourism too.
Posted by: paul nichols | 07/20/2007
Mate, if you want to talk bull, take it elsewhere.
I've been talking to and working with the locals for more than 12 months and what you claim is utter nonsense.
I reported last year that 13000 people had signed a petition saying no to a national park in Barmah forest. That alone makes a mockery of your comments. There is widespread community concern that a national park declaration would jeopardise the recreational pursuits of thousands and undermine the economies of towns such as Echuca, Barmah and several others.
Bundarrah Days also reported the resignation of two community representatives from the VEAC process.
http://bundarrahdays.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/08/26/red-gum-forest-investigation-derailed.html
Posted by: Phil | 07/20/2007
Paul... I'd love to know your position in the community as it sounds like you are a typical city greenie biting into an argument that you have no idea about.... My family has lived on the edge of the Gunbower State Forest for over 15 years now, and if VEAC have their say we'll be living right next to a tinderbox newly named the Gunbower National Park. Any "study" that wastes $66000 on a "statistical survey" that any secondary college student could put together in a week is an embarrassment to the scientific community. Imagine the weed and pest control they could do for that amout of money instead?! As a TRUE LOCAL, and a working scientist I've found the entire VEAC system to be a joke, and a complete waste of tax payers money. It's not going to be fun living next to the "neighbours from hell".
Posted by: Cathy | 07/20/2007
Jezus, some unpleasant people on this blog. For your info, I live in shepparton, or is that not country enough for you you strange person.
As for talking and working with locals for 12 months, I have been for many years, and I guess you talk to who you like to get a response from. I have met with locals from Cobram, echuca shepparton and Cohuna who are keen to see better protection for these areas. The recommendations allow for horse riding, trail bikes, camping and fishing. Obviously you are just talking with people with commercial interests... of course they don't want to change.
Life is ever changing and offers new opportunities or pitfalls at every turn. i guess it depends if you are glass half full or half empty personality. Given your comments, i guess your glass needs filling
Posted by: paul nichols | 07/23/2007
No Paul,
The people on this blog are not unpleasant, just very concerned and well aware of the consequences of some very poor decisions made by our apparently all knowing government.
I do not understand why we need yet more national parks when up until recently, pre Bracks. we were able to camp, ride horses and trail bikes and go fishing with relative freedom.
Now many of these pleasures have been denied us in many other areas. No doubt once the legislation goes through it will follow suit in the new parks in Northern Victoria.
It has always been a valid for private owners bordering national parks to have concerns regarding the high fuel loads within them due to the poor management and the abject failure of the authorities to control this problem. It would seem they are just not interested in hearing the concerns of people who live, work and play in the area especially when they oppose the view of the government.
They are removing these people's ability to play an active role in the management of their own areas while refusing to come up with any significant management plans and the monumental amounts of money it would take to achieve such a goal.
And before you go Paul, I am very proud to say I was born and raised on the Murray along with my brother who still lives next door to the Barmah State Forest and with the River flowing past his back door. Is that local enough for you mate?
Oh, and Phil isn't strange, he's just one of tens of thousands of people upset and seriously affected by such ill thought out decisions.
Posted by: Angela Downey | 07/23/2007
To answer your question Shepparton is a regional city, so it's not countryside you strange little person.
I have been working with the locals on this specific issue for more than 12 months but I have a very long association with the region as a former senior advisor to the long-term local MP, Peter Ross Edwards, when he was National Party Leader.
The recommendations are unwanted by the vast majority of locals and are the target of serious opposition. As I pointed out 13,000 locals signed a petition against any new national park.
You couldn't get a 10th of that number of people in the region to sign a petition in favour.
In addition community representatives don't resign from a process that is transparent and takes into account the interests of the people they represent.
There's no substance to your post. You talk a lot of bunkum.
If you were fair dinkim you'd be doing something positive to save the forests, like ensuring an adequate supply of water, but as you're a political green that would be too much to ask of you.
Posted by: Phil Maguire | 07/23/2007
Isn't it amazing Paul Nichols that while you allege widespread community support for the VEAC recommendations opposition is gathering apace.
Our latest report details a response from a group at Gunbower and the following illuminating letter was sent to another blog today.
"The Bracks Government under the guise of the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council is seeking to snatch in excess of a 100,000 hectares of the public's land.
Highlights of this land snatch are, no collecting of firewood, limits on where you can camp, no hunting, forcing people to close their businesses.
There is no grazing, but they are allowing Aboriginals to claim firearms as a part of their cultural heritage.
It's amusing that VEAC/Victorian Government wishes to have more land allocated as National Parks when they have proven they cannot manage the land they already have.
VEAC also contends that no wood collection will stop forest fires.
Should people wish to express their concern over this new land snatch contact VEAC on 03 96379902 or 1800134803
Regards
Brian"
Posted by: Phil Maguire | 07/23/2007
It appears that VEAC and the Green movement are happy to put the environment before people.
This report condemns the economic existance of thousands of people in the Red Gum region.
Their draft report has very questionable figures. It is not only the timber and cattle families under threat of economic extinction but the local shopkeeper, primary teacher, policemen and nurse that may also find themselves out of a job when the forest is locked up.Towns like Koondrook, Nathalia and Barmah cannot afford to lose these jobs. Don't tell me that they will find jobs in the tourist industry. Look at towns like Barham that are growing with city retirees. One of the local schools had to close because of lack of pupils.
We already have a good tourist industry. Nothing in the report shows that it will get bigger. Restricted camping without a campfire, no dogs or horses. Who wants to see a forest of blackberries, burs and box thorns? The foxes and ferral cats will deal with the parrots and brolgas as well.
We want a sustainable policy for our forest where people are at least treated equally with the trees.
Tom.
Posted by: Tom | 08/01/2007
I find I must agree with most of the posts here, except for Pauls. I'm a nature lover and environmental skeptic. I'm an a American who works at a lodge in a National Park (Kings Canyon in California.) I'm fond of my Park System, as well as Canada's, New Zealand's, and even Australia's state designated Parks.
But I find those Park Services and their "green" allies often don't know what their talking about, especially when it comes to economics and tourism (not to mention saving plants and animals). I've heard it too often from the Greens how this or that Park will increase tourism to make up for job losses. Than have such predictions be proved wrong. California's Redwood National Park is an excellent case in point. It was surmised , in a flawed mid 1960's study, that the Park would generated enough income due to increased tourism to completely make up for the timber job losses. The Park was predicted to get 1.2 million visitors (about the same as Sequoia/Kings Canyon NP). Unfortunately The Park got barely 1/2 million visitors on a good year and the area has been an economic cripple since. The Sierra Club, National Park Service and others were oblivious to the whole thing and unwilling to take responsibility for there role in the community's mess.
It seems to me the rural populations, except perhaps those who are aboriginal or native american, are too easily ignored by the greens. Rural folk also make them feel guilty. So they and the government seek to buy them off with "transition" payments and promises of increased tourism, which usually fail to deliver. As Tom notes the policy should treat people as equally as the trees. Glenn
Posted by: Glenn | 07/23/2008
Post a comment