The Prime Minister, John Howard, has called a summit to discuss the water crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin.
The meeting, being held as I write this blog, was apparently triggered by the NSW government decision to suspend water trading on the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers and the low state of the dams in New South Wales and Victoria.
According to Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, the big dams on the river will be just about empty by Autumn if it doesn’t rain.
Leader of the Australian Greens Bob Brown is claiming there has been a problem for years, the government has done nothing, and “seventy per cent of the river red gums along the Murray are either dead or dying.”
There are a few dead red gums along the Murray. But anyone who lives along the river, regularly visits the river, or saw the recent ABC series ‘Two Men in a Tinnie’ would know most of the river red gums along both the Darling and Murray Rivers are very much alive. Another huge porkie from Mr Brown! Another piece of misleading, probably originally from the MDBC.
What seems to have been forgotten in all the recent hand wringing is that just last October the NSW and Victorian governments – the same governments who this year are complaining their dams are empty – made the world’s largest delivery of environmental water letting the equivalent of a Sydney Harbor of water flood the Barmah-Millewa red gum forest which straddles the Murray River upstream of Echuca.
According to a Victorian government report on water operations: “The joint release saw 513 gigalitres of water delivered to the forest and the inundation of over half of the forest floodplain, resulting in greatly improved condition for wetland vegetation and breeding activity for key wetland fauna. Wetland vegetation, including moira grass and the threatened wavy marshwort, responded with significantly improved condition and the flooding waters provided for new growth and canopy regeneration in stressed river red gums. The release also triggered large reproductive events in important native fish species such as golden perch and the threatened silver perch as well as in many water bird species, including the great egret, darters, spoonbills, grebes, ibis and cormorants, and the critically endangered intermediate egret.”
All this during one of the worst droughts on record!
Then there is the water being sucked up from regrowth following the January 2003 bushfires in the upper catchment, new plantations, groundwater licences being activated by farmers who can now trade that water, improved on-farm water use efficiency and recycling some of this in place because of a past fear of rising groundwater tables*, water being evaporated by the Murray Darling Basin Commission’s salt interception schemes and low rainfall …and it is not that surprising that the region has a chronic water shortage.
But rather than do a proper water audit and work out the relative contribution of these factors which have probably all contributed to the current problem, governments and many key commentators keep blaming climate change. Yet the rainfall record for the MDB doesn’t show an abnormal decline.**
Rainfall record for the Murray Darling Basin from 1900 to the end of 2005.
South Australian Premier Mike Rann said he would use today’s summit to ensure water reached the bottom of the Murray-Darling basin. Yeah, many South Australians see the river as nothing more than an channel for getting water from the Hume and Dartmouth dams to Adelaide and their wine grape growers.
But sorry Mr Rann, noone can ensure that their will be water for South Australia if the dams run dry.
In advance of the summit, the National Farmers Federation Executive Director, Ben Fargher, put out a media release saying, “As a first priority, we need to ensure that towns which support regional communities have certainty over water supply. “There must also be a clear strategy to effectively manage core breeding stock, permanent plantings and other production issues in order to protect Australia’s agricultural base through this unprecedented drought.”
But that’s also impossible Mr Fargher if there is no water.
If the Murray runs dry next year it would be devastating for farmers and rural communities that draw their water from the river, but it would not be a disaster for the environment. Australian rivers run dry. Water levels in the Murray River have been artificially high so far this drought, because of the dams and weirs.
The Murray River at Riversdale in 1914.
The Murray River at Riversdale early this year.
Here’s some really ridiculous commentary from an article in last week’s The Age to illustrate the extent to which our politicians and environmentalists seem to not really care or understand the issue. They don’t seem to understand that if you don’t have any water, there will be none to save, and none for the environment. The article follows an announcement by Mr Turnbull inviting farmers and irrigators to participate in an “excess water scheme”.
“The scheme will provide an incentive for those with water entitlements in the southern Murray-Darling Basin to cut their water use.
Farmers could switch from flood-irrigating an orchard to using water drippers, for example, and sell the water they saved from their entitlements to the Federal Government.
… Peter Cosier, from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, slammed the tender, claiming it was “too complex” and “too bureaucratic”.
Mr Cosier said Australia was “way behind” its target to return 500 billion litres to the Murray River by 2009. “We don’t have time to muck around with inefficient grant schemes because they are not delivering water for the environment.”
… Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said that while Labor supported buying water, the Murray needed water now, not in 2009.
… Meanwhile, the Murray-Darling Water Crisis Management Council warned that the Hume Dam – a source of water to many towns and now at only 11 per cent capacity – would run dry in 24 weeks unless all environmental flows down the Murray were suspended.”
No Mr Albanese, the river doesn’t need water now, it’s all the industries that have grown up along the river that need water now. Without the dams and weirs built for these same industries the river would have already run dry.
———————–
* I explain how past policies driven by a fear of rising groundwater and spreading salinity may have artificially dehydrated the landscape in a piece I recently wrote for OLO: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5076 .
** I have recently explained that blaming the current drought on climate change is indeed drawing a long bow in a piece for the Courier Mail: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20678328-27197,00.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Spot on, Jen. We should also bear in mind that only a minor portion of the 500GL environmental release actually got used by the Red Gum ecosystems. Most of it was what is called “height water” which is water that stays in the river to raise the water level to a point where it will flood the Red Gums.
Once it has performed this function it then flows down to Lake Alexandrina where it evaporates. And even this evaporation function is a waste because the lake was a tidal estury before the barrage was built. This evaporation function was formerly provided by sea water. But after a hundred years of wise management, we now use up valuable fresh water to perform an ecological service that should be done by salt water.
Just another day in the brave new green utopia.
Weeellll
damn (dam 🙂 ?) lies and statistics by all of us – too simplistic Jen
Do a Bob Carter – rainfall has been in freefall since 1970. Any BoM trend map from (we all know here by now don’t we) would should show that.
With the climate mechanisms modelled and the evidence in the kit bag you could make a substantial climate change argument. Wouldn’t cinch it 100% – but you’d get enough of an argument to make you worried. And you have to look nationally and hemispherically to see that.
The Turnbull web site previously referenced this blog http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/downloads.aspx#
See drought MDBC briefing – would put it in the lowest three for stream flow. “Absolute lowest” becomes a pub argument at this level of accuracy. If it doesn’t rain this season will get into the “lowest”.
As for salinity – wait and see what happens if rainfall picks up. He who has the last laugh etc.. Of course will the blog be still blogging in 20-30 years (well let’s hope so).
Do we really know how the riparian vegetation on the Darling is going – do we have anything better than anecdotal evidence – any surveys??
Issue is that all expectations have been based on the 1950s and 1970s as normal. We’re probably maladapted cognitively already. We didn’t have the level of development we do know in the 1900s and 1940s. It’s all not up to our collective expectations.
But yes agree with some of the stuff youself and Motty say. And the electorate has gone climate change berserk (until it rains). Note RC still haven’t bothered with Stern. Research business as usual I’m afraid.
Reckon you haven’t formally explored the counter argument here – so only part marks unless you tidy up the assignment.
Anyway who gives a stuff – time for a beer, chook leg (organic ?! – not likely) and a bloody BIG bet. Gotta fund the research some how.
GOOOOO YOU GOOD THING !!!!!!!!!!!
Another “3 cone” conversation from Luke.
Jen says:
“Leader of the Australian Greens Bob Brown is claiming there has been a problem for years, the government has done nothing, and “seventy per cent of the river red gums along the Murray are either dead or dying … Another huge porkie from Mr Brown!”
No he isn’t. According to a Federal Government media release dated 13 September 2005:
“A recent survey by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission indicates up to 75 per cent of River Red Gums along large stretches of the Murray River floodplain are severely stressed or dead. Directing water to these stressed trees, by pumping or other means, can improve the health of these trees significantly.”
cheers
Expert opinions at 10 paces; CSIRO
“Eucalyptus camaldulensis is one of the most widespread tree species across Australia, and is not considered at risk.”
Steve M,
I’d forgotten about the MDBC report with the very misleading information, I have changed the post accordingly.
And Mr Brown would surely have visited the river recently and known it to be misleading …even before the huge 2005 environmental flow allocation.
Rog,
I live in the Hunter Valley. I work in the area of riparian vegetation management. E. Camaldulensis used to be found right along the Hunter River prior to European settlement. Now less than 1% remains. When we replant, we are required to use local provenence. Hunter river red gums are likely to represent a distinct genetic subtype and are listed as an endangered population by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation. It is true that river reds represent the most widespread eucalypt in Australia however not all river red gums are river red gums.
..and I thought E. tereticornis was the one they were targetting? – that is the one all the councils are handing out for free – pretty crappy plants too.
An excellent assessment Jen, and those telling photographs of the Murray at Riversdale!
And my, what a ‘quantum leap’..today,’the worst drought in a hundred years’ suddenly became the ‘worst drought in one thousand years’!! This along with more pink/green drivel on the ABC about it all being caused by ‘global warming’.
I wonder how many days it will take for a thousand years to become a million years? Against all this nonsense, the Australian Farm Institute came out today with some factual information based on recorded data on the number of times the Darling have ceased to flow and dried up in various areas. That the Murray has kept flowing and delivered the large releases you mention, is due to those wicked dams and weirs that the greenies say should never have been built.
The MDBC certainly has a lot to answer for, but
also the BoM and the CSIRO too.
The latter organisation seems to have been infiltrated by green fundamentalism; in particular
where the ACF’s Ian Lowe seems to be causing a bit of mischief.
No Sid – they have nothing to answer for. They should just walk away, stop all drought support and leave you guys to it.
If you see the transcript on the news, the “1 in 1000” was said “not be part of the briefing” but only a followup question. Which could have easily been – what would it mean if this drought kept going another year. The press are usually hopeless on the details. They would have sweated over that briefing to get the numbers correctly calculated.
So Sid given you’re such a genius how would you advise the Prime Minister is he asked what the frequency of this sort of event. And “the river has run dry before” isn’t the answer. The fact that the river has run dry before is hardly incisive given the river is now dammed.
This river red gum became extinct last week http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r98/chrislag/redgum.jpg
Don’t worry we have to plant two more.
This is really hopeless for any serious discussion on riparian vegetation. Do we have any statistics of how many km of river bank are affected by tree death – any surveys or is everyone simply pulling numbers out of the air?
LIke this: http://www.envict.org.au/file/Red%20Gum%20Report.pdf
Jen says:
“And Mr Brown would surely have visited the river recently and known it to be misleading …even before the huge 2005 environmental flow allocation.”
I wouldn’t be so sure about that:
“Located in the south-east of Australia, the Murray-Darling Basin covers 1 061 469 square kilometres, equivalent to 14% of the country’s total area.” http://www.mdbc.gov.au/about/basin_statistics
cheers
Jen, I also note this from the report Luke links to above:
“River Red Gum leaves often retain their green colour and photosynthetic capacity under
severe water stress. This implies that once the leaves become obviously discoloured the
tree is likely to be in exhaustion phase which will ultimately lead to death, unless the
stress is removed.”
Since Bob Brown is a doctor of medicine rather than a tree surgeon your suggestion that he should have been able to deduce how many River Red Gums are severly stressed based on a trip or two to the MDRB seems somewhat fanciful.
cheers
Also from same report;
“Our understanding of the response of River Red Gum communities to drought and variation in natural river flow is still in its infancy….
River Red Gums are noted for their ability to switch between different water sources and use water of differing quality, making them ideally suited to the harsh conditions of a river floodplain in arid and semi-arid environments. Because of these tolerances, coupled with the poorly understood relationships between flooding, climatic variation, groundwater salinity levels and other factors influencing tree health such as disease and pests, definitive identification of the causes of health decline is a major challenge.”
One sub species of river red gum does very well in the arid country west and north of Broken Hill; var. obtusa (“silverton”)
One sub species of river red gum does very well in the arid country west and north of Broken Hill; var. obtusa (“silverton”)
Anyway – despite the rhetorical bluster of “I saw a healthy tree when I was there” we have a survey that says as of Feb 2003, 80% of red gums on the Murray River floodplain in South Australia were stressed and 20-30% severely. This represents some 925 river kilometres. Doesn’t sound good to me !
“Evidence based pls guys !”
‘An excellent assessment Jen, and those telling photographs of the Murray at Riversdale!’
Bit of a double standard on what constitutes good scientific evidence! If only our climate scientists were capable of such excellent assessments (they probably don’t have photos going back early enough) 😉
Hmmmm, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that river photo before…… Anyone smell possum? :o)
Hi all,
This issue will probably be a stern test of Australia’s federal model. Its obviously complicated and the current management system is piecemeal. will it be possible to improve the management of water to cover the current contingency? will it become an important political issue – ie will australian politicians actually have to debate the issue at election time? If so, look forward to more obfustication.
Putting aside considerations of long term climate change, it’s clear this is a very dry year – I have just driven through NSW, Vic and SA on a camping holiday and have seen first hand how much water is not in the dams and rivers. Will next year be dry as well?
No one can tell, but applying the precautionary principle, as the pollies are now doing would seem to be the best strategy at this point.
As for the comment about how much water is in the river compared to historical levels. How can that be a valid approach now, given that the amount and timing of water flow down the system has been altered to such a degree?
So JD – a single photo is the sum total of your analysis. You guys are so easily bluffed by b/s.
Also – let’s apply the standard blog AGW position – how do we even know where it is. Probably a dried up anabranch – a local “drught island effect”.
Russell – “altered to such a degree” – exactly!
‘So JD – a single photo is the sum total of your analysis. You guys are so easily bluffed by b/s.’
Um, no… The point I was making that some people are very skeptical of climate scientists’ SCIENCE, but somehow photos suffice here…
Reread the post.
Just filing this here: http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=38533
on the Democrats, Andrew Bartlett and environmental flows
Russell,
There seems to be, what I would call, an obsession with keeping the river full of water … on the pretext this is the right thing to do by the environment. I would suggest keeping the river full of water is more about channelling water from the dams at the top of the catchment to South Australia than really acting in the interest of the environment.
Indeed, if this is indeed one of the worst droughts in 100 years, it might be in the best interests of the river’s ecology to let it run dry.
Aahhh yes, the fetid stench of ignorance, again. Bob Brown has morphed trees “under stress or dying” into trees that are “severely stressed or dead”.
Get your tiny brains around this fact folks, trees, like humans, experience stress all the time. And unless these “large stretches of the Murray River floodplain” are regrowth forest then it is a statistical certainty that most of them are “old growth”, and therefore, are in the process of dying.
Thats what big old Red Gums do for about 150 of their 300 year life cycle. Get used to it.
There is also a large numerical majority of young saplings that are produced in each previous inundation that normally die off in dry seasons. Again, get used to it, it is the way nature works.
And it may come as a surprise for some to learn that trees normally shed leaves in dry seasons. They start by denuding the lowest branches first and saving the highest so they can continue to compete with those of their neighbours that have survived their attempts at fratricide.
Choking the life out of one’s brother and sister trees is obviously a stressful activity. Leaf fall may well amount to a sign of stress, just as running to catch a train is in humans.
So when can we expect Brown to announce to the world that more than 75% of humanity is under serious stress or dying.
As Mark Twain said, “reports of my death are somewhat exaggerated”.
Not when you get a 900km stretch with 20-30% croaking and 80% in trouble. Get some data !
But who cares – given it’s little better than an agricultural drainage ditch just cut the trees down then we won’t have to argue.
Luke,
Are you just making it up? Where does the 80% come from?
From memory the 75% came from a study limited to South Australia that made no distinction between stressed and dead, and was based soley on a visual examination. Again from memory, this result was then extrapolated to the entire basin.
I suggest you get in a car and have a look along the Murray, rather than continue to quote made-up figures out of context.
No I suggest you read the study I tabled above.
I’m not extrapolating anything – I’m simply saying that here is a 900km section of river with some grim stats. We should have a survey for the whole Murray and Darling too for that matter.
Not just some favourite spots.
Of course trees do die at some rate “x” naturally from old age and “y” trees will die in a drought. But here is a system significantly modified. What’s real/acceptable?
What counts as data ?? Jen I suggest you substantiating more in your declarations. We should expect if this is your special subject some review of the literature/studies not just shooting from the hip. I would have thought you’d rattle them off like the two times table instead of a rhetorical blast. And areas that have been given a drink from an environmental allocation should look OK.
Luke,
Which study, please post the URL again/ or the reference with year and title and/authors.
And as regards good stats on red gums. Last time I looked all the red gum data held by the MDBC was difficult to make head or tail of … because of the way they had designed their ‘counts’.
The MDBC does though, hold good data on water quality.
The only data on red gums that I could find when I last looked, was old data held by forestry departments.
http://www.envict.org.au/file/Red%20Gum%20Report.pdf
Thanks for the link.
Yes that is the report I studied some years ago. … it’s about South Australia, didn’t distinguish between ‘stressed’ and ‘dead’ trees.
Would you consider it science? Do you think the study supports comment that 75 % of red gums along the Murray or in the MDB are dead or dying?
Yes I think it’s good science. And it’s certainly better than IMHO. It supports the area studied in SA but certainly gives me cause for concern overall.
My answer to your question is “I don’t know”. I also don’t know how much is healthy on the flip side.
We seem to have a lack of survey data to make a good case. Perhaps we have areas where river gums are doing quite well and others not so. Jen I would have hoped you’d have the numbers.
Given the importance I would have thought some airborne imagery would be called for on both the Murray and the Darling to assess a longer length of stream. Why focus on just the Barmah or just the Murray. How’s the Lachlan and Murrumbidgee going too? Let’s not just be iconic.
Of course we may to vote for people and agriculture or the environment – maybe we can’t have both.
I drove up and down the Lachlan and Murrumbidgee rivers a couple of years ago… to have a look. The IPA doesn’t have access to/or a budget for airborne imagery. But given all the money given to the MDBC they would.
Anyway, what I saw when I drove up and down the Lachlan and Murumbidgee rivers, were lots and lots of mature red gums all looking really healthy at a time when we were being told in the national media that they were dying across the MDB.
The situation may have since deteriorated, but I doubt it. Actually I was in Forbes a couple of weeks ago and while the countryside looked dry, there were lots of healthy redgums on the farms I visited.
But I’m sure the MDBC could have designed an experiment to give Bob Brown a doom and gloom headline. The way the CSIRO and MDBC presents data on the MDB is in my opinion a national disgrace.
Let me repeat this above quote from from Luke’s link:
“River Red Gum leaves often retain their green colour and photosynthetic capacity under
severe water stress. This implies that once the leaves become obviously discoloured the
tree is likely to be in exhaustion phase which will ultimately lead to death, unless the
stress is removed.”
Jen, you are being ridiculous when you suggest that everything is OK because you saw “lots of mature red gums all looking really healthy” as you drove past the Lachlan and Murumbidgee rivers.
Steve M,
You haven’t read the MDBC report, it was nothing more than a visual survey! They explain that they didn’t have time to do a ‘proper study’ of ‘tree physiology’.
And yes, I do think I can tell a healthy tree when I see one.
But I reckon you and Luke would believe that ‘red’ was ‘green’, if it came with a report stamped CSIRO or MDBC.
Go for a drive, go and have a look along the Murray … and the Lachlan and the Murumbidgee if you have time, and then come back and give us your opinion.
Jen – despite the IPA’s access to vast wealth and immense resources from THE BIG END OF TOWN I wasn’t suggesting you guys do the survey. In any case you’d just do laps of the Barmah forest and say it was fine and dandy. (yes I am joking – relax).
But if this river gum tree-death thing is so bad we should have some decent data. Is it a research issue or not? Job for MDBC ?
Jen – come on – that paper wasn’t that bad and the photos quite compelling to the evidence. Do you have any reason for not accepting it at face value. Is anyone using it as a defensive paper -like themselves or Bob Brown – nope buried in the literature. I just you guys as the protagonists would have a pretty good database on everything river gums and that the MDBC would also. Where’s the Wiki on river gum info?
Any Googlers out there finding anything? (Although I’m told one should still be using meta-search engines like dogpile – that’s dogpile Rog not .. ..)
OK here it is – besmirch this !
Survey of River Red Gum and Black Box health along the River Murray in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia 2004
http://publications.mdbc.gov.au/view_details.php?id=380&MDBCPublications_Session=1ff5ca88b7b04818d645de4359c11a30
*Big yawn* you dont retain much information do you Luke? it is the same report that you linked above.
from the same report I repeat;
“Our understanding of the response of River Red Gum communities to drought and variation in natural river flow is still in its infancy….
River Red Gums are noted for their ability to switch between different water sources and use water of differing quality, making them ideally suited to the harsh conditions of a river floodplain in arid and semi-arid environments. Because of these tolerances, coupled with the poorly understood relationships between flooding, climatic variation, groundwater salinity levels and other factors influencing tree health such as disease and pests, definitive identification of the causes of health decline is a major challenge.”
*Big belly laugh and fall off chair* – Should have stayed in school Rog and learned to read. You can work it out this time. What a gimp!
I had the opportunity to drive the Murray/Darling river system in September this year. Whilst the Darling is dry,very dry, I was most surprised to see the amount of water in the Murray at the junction. One would wonder how such vast stretches of “dying” redgums could occur given that the river is held to near overflowing by the locks. Crossed the river in many spots,none of which seemed parched. They were filling Lake Victoria at the time, no worries at that stage of loosing 200GL to evaporation.
Chowilla Nat. Park was where we were shown the red gums drought ability. Sure some of the trees were under stress but when given water responded extremely well. Trees that looked dead for all money bristled with new leaves. The park manager told us they had gone for some 20 years without a flood.(they had been irrigated some months earlier).
It is not feasible to expect large areas of floodplain to regain the high flows now moderated by storage. Communities rely on dams and irrigation to survive. Trees will come and go.
Both reports are identical – and Luke has read neither!
Good on google, pretty useless outside in the fresh air.
Should have stayed in school nursery hand.
hmmm
Gee one report seems to be 24 pages and one 36 pages. Gee one seems to have an Appendix II.
And one report even references the other.
“In response to extensive tree decline recorded in both the 2002 tri-State survey and the
River Red Gum survey in South Australia, four additional regions were included in the
2004 survey to encompass a greater spatial extent of the River Murray floodplain.”
What is sobering is the 2004 study’s conclusions:
“Based on the findings of this survey, it can be concluded that if current tree health
decline continues, floodplain trees along a large portion of the River Murray may be lost.
With only 25% of all the trees surveyed in 2004 considered healthy, there are serious
implications for the long term survival of a range of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, as
well as the dependent flora and fauna.
Foliage loss has impacts beyond that of individual or tree populations. Large-scale foliage
loss will reduce organic detritus inputs into the river. This will likely lead to reductions in
detritus-dependant flora and fauna that would cause commensurate losses of ecologically
linked plant and animal populations, such as fish and waterbirds.
The significant percentage of trees exhibiting signs of stress and the occurrence of stress
in all regions on the River Murray floodplain surveyed, indicate that the phenomenon is
related to floodplain and river processes, and are likely to be the result of a combination
of drought and a lack of extensive or frequent flooding.
The decline in tree health between 2002 and 2004 could be attributed to a number of
factors, not the least of which is that the past four years have been the driest years with
the lowest inflows on record for the River Murray. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
drought-related tree decline events have occurred in the past, with tree condition
improving once rainfall or flooding resumed. Increased irrigation activities, the associated
diversion of flows and elevated saline groundwater due to irrigation close to the
floodplain in some locations, may limit the recovery potential of floodplain trees
compared with past drought events. This would have widespread implications for both
the appearance and the ecological functions of the River Murray wetlands and floodplain.”
It’s now 2006 and close to 2007 !
Cherry picking again, the summary remains the same;
“Our understanding of the response of River Red Gum communities to drought and variation in natural river flow is still in its infancy….
What waffle Luke, don’t you have anything else to do besides sitting in front of Google all day!
“the past four years have been the driest years with the lowest inflows on record for the River Murray”. C’mon, produce the data, and it’s source.Has it been reviewed or authenticated by an independent arbiter, if it exists. Or is it just anecdotal evidence! What period does the record cover? Is it 50 years? Or 100? Maybe 1,000!I’m now waiting to hear the ‘magic million’ quoted.
OK other thread then
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001720.html#comments
Rog – you said “identical” – you are dead wrong and that is that.
Sid – Googling about 20 mins worth. Try reading before engaging abuse.
Nit picking! both reports are identical and say the exactly the same thing.
One is the:
FINAL REPORT March 2003
This report may be cited as: Preliminary Investigations into observed River Red Gum decline along the River Murray below Euston, Technical Report 03/03 ISBN 1 876830 47 6
created 29/5/2003 modified 28/1/2004
38 pages
the other is:
FINAL REPORT March 2003
This report may be cited as: Preliminary Investigations into observed River Red Gum decline along the River Murray below Euston, Technical Report 03/03 ISBN 1 876830 47 6
created 29/5/2003 modified 28/1/2004
38 pages
Prove me wrong.
This is Ground Hog day
http://publications.mdbc.gov.au/view_details.php?id=380&MDBCPublications_Session=1ff5ca88b7b04818d645de4359c11a30
from there we get here:
This report may be cited as: Survey of River Red Gum and Black Box Health along the River
Murray in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia – 2004
MDBC Publication No. 06/05
ISBN 1 921038 38 1
24 pages
Oh look IT IS DIFFERENT TO:
FINAL REPORT March 2003
This report may be cited as: Preliminary Investigations into observed River Red Gum decline along the River Murray below Euston, Technical Report 03/03 ISBN 1 876830 47 6
created 29/5/2003 modified 28/1/2004
38 pages
Dearest Roget – I refer you to this excellent poetry for mental help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon_poetry
So tedious – I just chewed my mouse hand off.
Still madly picking cherries Luke, again you have deliberately avoided the previous report that forms a part of the MDBC publication that you linked to.
Signs of mad desperation from a demented nit picker and a compulsive obsessive Googler.
However, focussing only on your preferred option we find that;
“While the time period of monitoring is not sufficient to draw conclusions about the cause of the decline in health, the survey methodology does allow for future assessments and trend analysis.”
How many times do you read a report like that? Inconclusive analysis, needs more work..
I tell you, if you were to float a company on the ASX using that depth of fundamental analysis you would be listed as a speccie.
You need to get away from that keyboard Luke, you are living in a dreamworld that Disney would envy.
Rog caught out stark naked lays smoke. The reports are clearly not identical and 2004 introduces new data. Rog – just simply say you made an error. You goofed. We all do at times. But some of us say so early instead of digging a six foot hole and attacking someone else.
I never it said it didn’t reference the 2003 work. It’s quite good work IMHO. Rog – you don’t need to bother attacking me with the hatred and bile that you seem to enjoy. Do you enjoy being the blog sour puss, grinch and putting the boot in. Clearly you do. A nasty little right wing grouch.
What you are pathetic with is making a solid contribution. We mainly get smarmy one-liners from you and little intellectual effort. Seems to me like you have a very big chip on your shoulder.
We got into this debate by asking the question is their any evidence of red gum ill health on the Murray. Yes there clearly is some. It may not be up to your ASX standards – well boo hoo. That’s your problem from your perspective.
What you continually offer is a gloomy nihilistic interpretation of all research. The typical whinging small businessman small man syndrome. Frankly researchers are sick of people like yourself and wonder why it’s worth communicating. And the stereotype would encourage ardent greenies to go even harder and not to build bridges. You typify what they conceive.
Get your finger out and make a contribution instead of being a professional arm chair critic.
“previous report that forms a part of the MDBC publication that you linked to”
IT SAYS RELATED TITLES: !
Try to stay on topic Luke instead of resorting to your pathetic smear tactics, so juvenile and so counterproductive.
hmmm another disparaging one-liner. How about “yes they are clearly not identical”.
There has been comments about the river red gums on and around the Murray river being stressed or dying.what I have noticed over many years around Gippsland with both river and forest red gums if the area comes under regular irrigation and there is a lapse in the watering of the pasture amongst the trees they become stressed and some do die. The dams and locks on the Murray may be creating a false stream flow and upsetting the trees of their drought proofing abilities.Many of our streams that have dams in Victoria now maintain false environmental flows that are not relevent to the climate at the time. In Gippsland history has shown forest red gums have died in ones and twos each year in each of the remaining areas, many causes have been identified such as super phosphate,christmas beetles,grazing,lack of fire, etc, but regardless even in it’s natural state the red gum forest seems to let a few die periodically. I have noticed over the last 30 years as others have, how well the Murray looks each time I have travelled it regardless of drought or good times.But it has been a very different story in the Darling in time of drought. It must be remembered the Murray is supplemented by the Snowy River. In the last 20 years I have travelled Australia and am amazed the forests of Red Gums over much of it, from Gippsland in Victoria the Macdonnell Ranges in NT. to many areas of Queensland.