Aussie-politician-in-faeces-throwing-row

[photohiker]

Well, I don't know about the mining in national park issue in the US, but they certainly don't hold back from blowing up mountains to get at the coal over there:

http://www.plunderingappalachia.org/theissue.htm

More than 470 mountains in the southern Appalachians, which are among the oldest mountains on Earth, have already been sheared off. Vast areas of wildlife habitat, the most biologically diverse forest in North America, have been obliterated. Roughly 2000 miles of streams have been filled or severly degraded by mining waste, all in pursuit of coal. And coal is a lousy way to power a society.

It's a bit of a race to the bottom.

[GPSGuided]

NP is just one tiny aspect of government.

[Hallu]

Mountaintop removal mining is a disgusting practice, yes, but at least they don't do it in their parks. As polluting a country they are, their parks are sacred. That never was the case in Australia. And open-pit mining is just as environmentally destructive, which is what we do. Blowing up a mountain or carving a huge hole in the ground have the exact same effects on the environment. And both methods have the nerve to pretend that once you put all the earth back into place, it's as good as before...

[GPSGuided]

Tradition and expectation. Hard to change. The US impart considerable rights and protection within its border, then all change outside.

[Hallu]

The US were lucky in having conservationists and nature lovers that were rich and/or very highly placed on the decision making ladder. People like Theodore Roosevelt, or John Rockefeller Jr. Australia had no such luck I'm afraid. Plenty of brilliant conservationists, none with such power (Bob Brown was the closest we got).

[Nuts]

Well, I think parks wise we have done very well. The price for having so many, formed so quickly, is a compensation to local practices and concessions for industry. Not ideal, management and funding will never be enough. To me it's better to have 500 in transition than 50 well groomed.

[Strider]

I reckon there should be no automated preferences, simple as that. In the senate if you bother to numbber all boxes good for you (I did this time) but having parties decided who someone preferences without any other voice from the voter is wrong

I agree. Although the information of who is preferencing who IS available, who bothers to look it up???

[Drifting]

We could start the Bushwalkers Party. Get that senate ticket and then negotiate that your favourite patch of bush be "locked up" as a National Park in return for voting for the sell off of some public infrastructure. Poo throwing is a desirable quality for joining

I'd throw poo at that!

[perfectlydark]

Wouldnt want to impede on the precious economy. Be all and end all of things here

[Son of a Beach]

We don't actually have National Parks in Australia. That's the problem. We have State Parks, but call them "National Parks". Makes no sense. But basically the state has the right to excise parts of the park for other uses (as happened with Lake Pedder), or to authorise other uses within the park even without excising part of the park.

Because we don't actually have National Parks, there are not federally backed rules or policies for what can and cannot happen with them.

What's different to pretty much all Western countries? The US is completely linked with all their industry (read big $$$) special interest groups. Italy was until recently completely held to ransom by the country's richest businessman. The list goes on...

I don't know, I guess I just feel it a lot more in Australia when I see big mining companies scarring national parks such as Karijini or Kakadu. And this certainly wouldn't happen in the US. Over there, once a National Park is declared, at least you can't touch it. Here, we're talking about allowing logging and hunting in VIC and NSW NPs, and Queensland has authorized grazing by cattle in NPs in case of drought. And yet it doesn't seem like such the scandal that it should be, because it's Australia, and this is pretty common and expected from greedy industry-friendly state governments...

[GPSGuided]

Because we don't actually have National Parks, there are not federally backed rules or policies for what can and cannot happen with them.

With the intended take over of health and education by the Federal govt, how will the take over of NPs be viewed politically? Don't think it'll happen.

[Hallu]

Well, I think parks wise we have done very well. The price for having so many, formed so quickly, is a compensation to local practices and concessions for industry. Not ideal, management and funding will never be enough. To me it's better to have 500 in transition than 50 well groomed.

I'm shocked by what you just said. Conservationists in Australia think the exact opposite (read the articles on https://theconversation.com/au/environment or http://conservationbytes.com/ ). Because none of the parks are well maintained, none of them are a refuge for wildlife and plants. They're not in transition to be as good as US NPs, they're in transition to become grazing, mining or logging land. This is the biggest problem in Australia regarding our parks right now. They're not national because managed by the state, and there's no strong legislation to forbid hunting, grazing, poaching, mining or logging, or worse : they're so numerous, there's not enough money allocated to the really important ones... What's the point in pretending to create a protected area if it's not protected against anything ? Look at the new marine reserve created in the Kimberley : fishing and oil/gas prospecting is still allowed in them... hence there's absolutely no difference ! In WA, it is legal to take mineral samples in NPs for analysis in case there's potential for a mine... In Queensland or Victoria many parks don't deserve the name of "national park" (in Victoria, Churchill, Tarra-Bulga or Alfred NPs for example : areas deserving to be protected but certainly not to be called NPs, you can't put them on the same level as Kakadu, South-West or Alpine...). In Queensland the GBR is in a state of shame for all the world to see, and that's not only because of global warming. It's not because most of our parks look wild on the surface that they're all in good health... Kakadu is in an appalling state for example. I really hope for the future of our parks that your opinion is a minority. You really need to realize how *&%$#! up our park legislation is.

[tastrax]

... none of them are a refuge for wildlife and plants.

Well, there are some that are refuges for plants and wildlife (but this one is a Nature Reserve so technically, not a National Park)

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/?base=394
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=626

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/?base=13013

[tastrax]

I also thought Kakadu was run by the Commonwealth so technically it is a "National" park and not a "State" park

http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/kakadu/

[Nuts]

It's probably not the place to spend effort on such a topic. I'm not going to argue that park legislation is ideal or that state governments aren't more reactionary to locally populist policies. I haven't been to Kakadu (yes it is administered by the commonwealth..) and its been a while since iv'e spent time in Qld parks, the alternative would have been forestry, sand mining.. unchecked industry, from what I saw? I very much doubt np. status accounts for 'nothing' looking back on how things 'were'..
There is no doubt conservation would approach ideal if industry is disqualified, probably bushwalkers as well (ideally).

Your first link is general- yes, i occasionally read articles in the convo (thanks )

The glass is half empty? Where do your/ 'the' 'conservationists' argue for less places termed 'national parks' or advocate a revision in status?

"To me it's better to have 500 in transition than 50 well groomed"

[Hallu]

Kakadu : http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=WR09125
The reef : https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/coal ... ntent-3753
NPs aren't national and the legislation is rubbish : http://conservationbytes.com/2013/06/14 ... al-at-all/ http://theconversation.com/our-national ... ocks-14389

[Hallu]

Something I need to add too is that the problem isn't that there is too much land protected, it's that there isn't enough. 500 parks is the consequence of compromising : instead of protecting a huge parcel of land, allowing wildlife and plants to thrive, forests and rivers to recover, state governments usually prefer protecting many small parcels, because farmers want to keep that bit, industrialists want another bit, or that one is too expensive private land to buy back etc... This means that we have isolated pockets that aren't connected to each other. That favors pests (native wildlife has a better chance in a huge isolated wilderness), and isolate populations that can't breed with each other, which favors interbreeding and weaker lineage.

A good example of what not to do is in the South-West of Victoria : isolated pockets such as Lower Glenelg, Mount Richmond, Discovery Bay and Cape Neslon, fringed and separated by huge pine plantations and farmland. On the other end of the state, we have (almost) what should be done with the Croajingolong/Nadgee wilderness, and if there were a nation-wide legislation for national parks, those two could finally be merged into a big national park, in the same way that Alpine, Kosciuszko and Namadgi should be.

And on another matter that lack of merging is true everywhere. Why can't connected national parks be made into a bigger one ? It doesn't cost anything... Deua, Wadbiliga, Budawangs and Morton NPs should be merged into one giant Budawangs NP, why isn't it done ? In the North-West of Victoria, why isn't a huge Mallee National Park being put in motion ? Murray-Sunset and Hattah-Kulkyne could easily be connected, Wyperfeld and Big Desert+Ngarkat in SA already are, it's then only a matter of connecting Wyperfeld and Murray-Sunset with a wildlife corridor. I look at the SW of Australia and wonder why D'entrecastaux, Frankland, Shannon and Walpole-Nornalup aren't a single big park ? It would be easier for everyone.

To get back to the troublesome child, Queensland, they don't have big parks at all. If you look at a google map of Australia, you see significant green portions only in 3 states : SA, VIC and TAS. TAS requires no explanation, it's the model other states should follow. SA followed American regulations on the careful selection of their parks (source : Reader's Digest Wild Australia), allocating vast parcels of land, and Victoria was lucky to have many mallee areas and mountains that weren't really suited for exploitation. If you have a look at NSW, they only protect the coast. In the outback, it's all been about mining, sheep and cattle grazing. Once the pastoral leases expire because everything's been destroyed by logging, grazing, pest and erosion, then they consider declaring it a park (Kinchega, Mungo or Willandra). In Queensland, despite having between 200 and 300 national parks, only 5% (!!!) of their land is protected in reserves and parks, against 10.8 % for the Australian average. This number really shows how having many parks is just a smoke screen for this joke of a state in terms of conservation.

[Pteropus]

It is a complicated situation and I think both Hullu and Nuts’ arguments should be looked at as complementary rather than contrasting to each other. Australia’s reserve system is not perfect, and many of the older national parks simply came about because they were in locations that were not favourable for development of agriculture (indeed this is the case across the globe). Therefore they often only protect a small amount of biodiversity. However, as we shift to a systematic conservation planning approach, it is probably best to identify locations where conservation action is needed and buy the land when we can, rather than let the opportunity go to waste simply because the resources to manage it aren't available. We might be waiting forever in that scenario. Fact is though, most biodiversity is on private land, and yes, connectivity is a big issue. We need to remember that conservation is rarely about preservation, and it is more about management of usable resources without their complete destruction or conversion into another state.

One thing is for certain about our new government: no matter how well they perform at governing country’s economy, managing infrastructure or social projects, conservation of the environment will not be high on the list of priorities. This is already evident with the threat of removing the carbon tax, plus the proposed changes to federal environmental laws such as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), and handing Commonwealth power over the environment to the States. The Qld State government, not known for their environmentally friendly attitude, are very hopeful about removal of so-called “green tape”. I think this is a very bad idea. I’m not convinced that the majority of Australians really understand, or care for that matter, how poorly the environment is treated. I think it comes down to individual values, and most people don't really know what the issues are when it comes to the environment, so it is difficult to inform people what is going on, especially when they have their minds made up that development of the economy based on mining or other infrastructure projects are the only options. And I wonder what our kangaroo poo throwing friend thinks about all this.....

[GPSGuided]

Key issue, we have a massive mining sector in our economy with their political lobby and MPs. It'll never be easy.

[Hallu]

Yes I'm also often wondering how well the average Australian is aware of these issues. When I talk to Aussie friends and colleagues, most of them have never even been to Kakadu, or Karijini, or even the Victorian deserts. Their reaction is always "you're seeing more than the average Aussie is seeing". The explanation is that more often than not, we assume that we have all our life ahead of us to discover our own country, and would rather visit foreign ones. This means that most young and middle-aged Aussies don't know about conservation in their country. It seems that only grey nomads are aware about what's going on, because they're the ones getting to know their environmental backyard. The other ones are worried about their family, bills and mortgages, and want to go to Europe for the holidays.

The reaction of Queensland are appalling : they see themselves as Queenslanders first, Australians second. I wouldn't be so proud at being a Queenslander if I were them... I'm amazed at that "green tape" thing, it's the same as this idiot saying QLD's parks are locked up, where they're clearly the opposite compared to other parks in other countries. Queensland is not and has never been held back by environmental concerns, on the contrary it has done whatever it wants. Until the 70s, it was the forestry department who managed QLD parks, which means logging was legal... Now they're passing their bill on grazing in NPs in case of drought. What more freedom to they want ? Do they want to allow littering in NPs ? They're already trying to do it in the GBR... I'm seriously concerned about a huge environmental uproar in QLD in the coming years, because their massive industrial projects are just too much, something's gonna snap in the people's minds, and it won't be pretty...

[Pteropus]

I'm amazed at that "green tape" thing, it's the same as this idiot saying QLD's parks are locked up, where they're clearly the opposite compared to other parks in other countries.

If you read that story properly, it is about how National Parks are the LEAST locked up land there is. Hence my earlier joke

We could start the Bushwalkers Party. Get that senate ticket and then negotiate that your favourite patch of bush be "locked up" as a National Park in return for voting for the sell off of some public infrastructure.

I'm not sure if you were calling the authors of the article idiots, but I know two of them personally and they most definitely not idiots and are some of the smartest people I know. National Parks are open to anyone to visit and that is exactly what they are saying.

[GPSGuided]

Yes I'm also often wondering how well the average Australian is aware of these issues....

Much people in our society just care about what's coming into their wallet. Works well for many political parties.

[Hallu]

I'm afraid you misunderstood me Pteropus, obviously I agree with the authors of this article and would never call them idiots, I said that QLD parks aren't locked up at all. The "idiot" in my mind was the guy saying they are, in that case the QLD NPs minister they're talking about in the article.

[Pteropus]

No worries Hallu. Retrospectively I wondered if you had meant the person in the article, since you ended up agreeing with it. The whole locked up argument keeps coming up when it comes to NPs and so many people think it is so, without really thinking about it.

[Pteropus]

Senator-elect and kangaroo poo thrower Ricky Muir -> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-11/r ... ce/4952406

[GPSGuided]

He had a make-over with a sharp hair cut. He is on a platform for 4WD rights. More SUVs on the road or more 4WD access in the bush? Don't quite understand but time will tell.

[Hallu]

lol how many more rights do you need for 4WD enthusiasts ? They already can go pretty much anywhere... He talks like they're persecuted or something... And nobody enters politics for money, they all do it for power.

[GPSGuided]

I need to form a party that stands on the rights of car drivers who are threatened by oversized 4WD/SUVs that clogs our city streets. In an energy efficient VW Up or Smart car or any of the regular sized 2WD vehicles, the intimidation has been too much for the last decade and more. Must stand up and have a voice and be SEEN! Let's see, this platform surely be able to pick up 2% of the electorate and that $190k salary to seat on a leather seat for a good part of the year would be nice.

No, I don't drive an Up or a Smart.

[Pteropus]

lol how many more rights do you need for 4WD enthusiasts ? They already can go pretty much anywhere...

Except in national parks that have been locked up
But greater access to national parks by 4wds and trail bikes might be around the corner. I have heard rumours from Qld
At least Muir concedes that 4wders need to work on their image. He sounds quite humble actually, which is nice to see.

[Hallu]

It's really ironic that the guy is called Muir... Anyway, in Victoria, 4WD is pretty much liberal, you can go anywhere. There are plenty of 4WD tracks in the Alpine region (including Mitchell river and Snowy river NPs), and even more in the Mallee/Victorian deserts. Close to Melbourne, you have playgrounds such as the Wombat State Forest or Lerderderg. I mean unless carving 4WD tracks in Wilsons Prom or tracks going all the way up to Mt Bogong and Mt Feathertop, I can't think of anything more you could do to help 4WD enthusiasts in Victoria... On the other hand there's a LOT that could be done for 2WD owners... There are many popular roads that are car killers in Australia. Karijini is on top, but you could think of roads in Croajingolong, even the roads in Ben Boyd NP are in bad shape, some roads in Morton, all the roads on Kangaroo island (with their rubbish tiny signage), in Tassie you have the roads to Walls of Jerusalem or Fortescue Bay, and in NSW many outback roads around Mutawintji could use some help.