According to an online NBC news report the FBI considers ecoterrorism the most widespread and damaging form of domestic terrorism in the US. It has been carried out against forestry activities and against biotechnology (genetically modified plants) and for animal rights. Yesterday 11 ecoterrorists were charged:
“The indictment tells a story of four-and-a-half years of arson, vandalism, violence and destruction claimed to have been executed on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front or Earth Liberation Front, extremist movements known to support acts of domestic terrorism,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference Friday.
“There is a clear difference between constitutionally protected advocacy … and violent criminal activity,” Mueller added.
“It is one thing to write concerned letters or to hold peaceful demonstrations,” Mueller said. “It is another thing entirely to construct and use improvised explosives to harass and intimidate victims by destroying property and to cause millions of dollars in losses by acts or threats of violence.”
… A criminal complaint filed in federal court in Eugene accused Paul, a firefighter, of setting firebombs that burned down a horse slaughterhouse in 1997. The ALF claimed responsibility for that fire, which caused an estimated $1 million in damage.
Savoie, who works in a group home for the developmentally disabled, is accused of serving as a lookout for a fire in 2001 that destroyed offices of a lumber mill. The ELF claimed responsibility for that fire.
Ecoterrorists have done more than $100 million in property damage over the past decade, officials told NBC News on Friday.
… Targets included U.S. Forest Service ranger stations, U.S. Bureau of Land Management wild horse facilities, lumber companies, meat processing companies, a ski area and the power line, the indictment said.
Interestingly the terrorists, the media and the Judge don’t appear to distinguish between terrorism for ‘the environment’ and terrorism for ‘animal rights’. To quote from a recent post at this blog: “Animal welfare, animal rights (including animal liberation) and conservation are three independent issues, which are often in conflict. Boundaries need to be placed on each to better understand their role in different context.”
What were the 11 really fighting for?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It should also be noted that the only Dutch politician to be assassinated for more than a century, Pym Fontyn(sp?), was killed by a green extremist. Not to mention the charmers in the UK who dug up the recently buried body of a factory manager’s mother to make their point.
Probably explains Tim McVeigh too.
And John Lennon’s killer .. ..
Reminds of the ABC 7:30 report 10 years ago when Wilderness Society types were conveniently at a remote forrest location, on a Sunday, video filming an explosion of timber in some SW NSW timber plantation. The story dies a quick death.
Point was how did the “amateur video” operator happen to be right at the right location to film forresty clearing on a Sunday.
The 11 were not fighting for anything – but unable to resort to reason to make their point, adopted terror to achieve their goals.
That means having to go to their website to find out what they are on about, but anyone who resorts to violence to make a point has already lost the argument and the right to any civil liberty.
Deny others their civili rights, and you automatically forfeit your own. Except for the doublestandards we live under.
Pim Fortuyn was right-wing and was murdered by someone because he disagreed with Pim’s views on immigration. The murderer claimed to acting on behalf of the country’s muslims. Nothing to do with animals or green events. Pim called islam backwards/retarded and was anti-immigration.
An interesting link to the recent hysteria over Japan’s research in the Antarctic: Rodney Coronado, was recently found guilty of disupting a mountain lion hunt in Sabino Canyon. The Assistant U.S. Attorney Wallace Klein-dienst, when asked about the guilty finding, said Coronado is “a danger to the community.” “This trial wasn’t about Rod Coronado being a terrorist, but he is one.” For a long time, Rod Coronado was a Sea Shepherd member.
What specific types of terrorist activities did he employ to disrupt the lion hunt?
Glenn’s PR framing hasn’t gone unnoticed, btw.
“hysteria” (attempt to taint those who oppose Japan’s non-legal whaling)
“Japan’s research” (ie the poorly excused pretend research that involved slaughtering whales for food and missing a number of harpoon shots so the whales enjoyed a prolonged agonising death?)
but we don’t want to get into that whale of an issue here again do we, so perhaps we should leave the pro-ICR PR spin off this thread
I don’t support deliberate attacks on people or property, however it seems these so-called eco-terrorists feel that desperate measures are in order. Do you think that removing the tax-free status and otherwise restricting the ability of NGO’s to campaign openly will cause more movements to go underground and engage in these types of activities? Terrorism after all is predicted to be the growing threat of our times and nothing fuels rebellion as well as repression.
Some corporate-funded lobby groups are campaigning against NGO’s and (Eg the Center for Consumer Freedom) deliberately aligning non-violent mainstream environmental groups with the radical minority fringe. In doing so, perhaps they will feed the fringe, leading to more property damage?
Think, leave Glenn (and others alone), this is my blog and I encourage descriptive english.
If you want a blog without ‘spin’ start your own and then delete all the comments starting with your own.
On the subject of NGOs, noone is censoring them, just querying their charity status.
Interesting isn’t that all you have to do to marginalise a group that goes against your interests is to label them terrorists.
Are the opposition groups opposed to the exploitation of the Nigerian oil fields terrorists? Or the groups opposing the privatisation of water supplies in South America. In these cases western corporations are exploiting the resources with very little benefit to the locals hence the opposition.
Leave Glenn alone? 🙂 That’s humour? When he tells the ICR to leave the whales alone. If only you were as quick to jump to the defence of the whales as you are the paid PR strategist of the Japanese Institute for Commercial Research.
“Descriptive English”? But not in lieu of objective accuracy? Perhaps my English is not descriptive enough and I should use more adjectives? eg how the magnificent, vulnerable whales scream in agony when cruelly harpooned by the Japanese who invaded Australian territory, the intense suffering worsened because the innocent whales lack the merciful ‘safety valve’ of unconsciousness that humans have, meaning that the poor innocent whales can’t but endure the horrific agony until they die, an event that’s needlessly prolonged because the harpoons often repeatedly maim without killing so they eventually have to put the suffering whale out of its misery by shooting or electrocuting it? For credibility’s sake, I think descriptive English should be limited within the bounds of reasonable objectiveness, or dare I say it, truth!
I enjoy reading the posts on your blog that are logically put, even when they argue against me as I learn something from them. I do thank you for allowing my comments and I think it adds credibility to your blog. It would be a boring blog if everyone agreed with you. Given that I make well reasoned, considered and (mostly) rationale comments, link to sources and don’t resort to personal insults, and given that you claim to use this blog to explore issues and that you claim a balanced approach, then you should welcome my contributions.
Think, You attacked Glenn because he used his real name to comment and this is linked, at this blog, to information about what he believes and where he works, and where he worked before that. I am happy for you to continue to comment on issues (rationally and irrationally as far as I can tell), but if you are going to attack real people on the basis of their beliefs and their occupation then please go somewhere else.
PS I might be less offended if you used your real name.
I didn’t attack Glenn, I attacked his selective choice of words. I’m not attacking **people** on your blog, your other posters already have that sport well and truly covered.
I didn’t attack Glenn’s choice of words “because he used his real name”. Rather, I questioned his choice of words because they were distorting the issue in line with the ICR’s publicity brief.
Accordingly, given the aim you profess for this blog, it would be bigoted of you to want me to leave.
If Glenn had posted under the name ‘think 2’ your comment would have lacked ammunition. you attacked him and his profession – you had ammunition because he used his real name.
pls show me the words with which I attacked Glenn personally. In truth, I responded to his words, not his name. Initially I didn’t associate his post with Glenn the PR strategist, until I thought ‘that post reeks of PR’ and then the penny dropped.
by the way, what is the IPA’s motive in “querying their (NGO’s) charity status”? Is it “censorship” (because I didn’t use the word censorship but you did).
btw: I would like to repeat this: I do thank you for allowing my comments and I think it adds credibility to your blog. It would be a boring blog if everyone agreed with you (and not much a learning blog either).
the same FBI Director Robert Mueller III appearing in the NBC news report in Feb 05 testified before the Senate Committee on Intelligence that major incidents of eco-terror had actually declined in 2004.
Rodney Coronado has his own website, in his own words;
“Getting together three or four friends of mine, we came back a week later to that farm, we broke into the main laboratory, we trashed every single piece of equipment, we stole documents and lists of fur farms across the nation. And we started a fire in an experimental fur farm, an experimental feed building, where they manufactured the experimental diets which were the focus of research at this farm. And that fire destroyed all the equipment, and in the ensuing raid, the raid that happened caused enough damage that six months later that lab was forced to shut down. That was five people, folks — once again maybe like twelve hundred dollars, a couple weeks of planning, five people. But that wasn’t the end. I knew I had to continue, and for the next — oh gosh, a little over a year — we took out, one by one, every recipient of what’s called the Mink Farmers Research Foundation. It’s a foundation whose sole purpose is to aid research to benefit the fur farm industry.”
— SHAC rally, Edison, New Jersey, Nov 2002
“More than anything we applied arson, and effectively we destroyed — um, let’s see — the Northwest Fur Breeders Cooperative in Edmonds, Washington, which we hit a week later after OSU. We hit Washington State University’s Eastern Washington experimental fur farm. We did get seven coyotes out of there, six mink, and ten mice … We burned down a fur farm that was on the market to be sold, in Oregon also. We went to the Michigan State University’s experimental fur farm program and destroyed thirty-two years of research, by using fire once again, and rescued two mink from there.”
— SHAC rally, Edison, New Jersey, Nov 2002
http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/3255
Makes me think that the FBI have been effective in reducing major incidents of eco-terror in 2004.
I see it more as sabotage than terrorism. The political actions seek to destroy, damage or obstruct associated processes and/or infrastructure, rather than intimidate through terrible violence. Perhaps it is merely a lesser step upon the same continuum, however, I do believe (particularly with extreme environmental activism) that the moral crusade is a convenient cover to the underlying exclusivity.
What price does the lowliest Greenpeace activist pay for the privilege of participation upon Antarctic waters and in defence of the great whales? Can anyone participate or is there a process where one must first earn the right?
I can very well imagine the cameradierie, drama, passion and beauty sustaining lifelong memories and endless reminiscences at the greenest of social gatherings.
But eco-sabaotage is not the sole jurisdiction of NGO’s. The sacrificial principle has been used by government bureaucracies to spearhead unethical acquisition for protective purposes (see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3594).
There is a European country where acts of ecoterrorism are OK’d by the court system. That country is France, and there, you can destroy crops if you claim to defend the environment. Here is the link if you don’t believe me.
http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/2006/01/france-gmos-are-unconstitutional.html
Read that and you’ll know about as much as you need to.
If property destruction is terrorism, is it terrorism to allow GM crops to contaminate non-GM crops?
Property destruction is theft.
What is the moral position if Europe, Israel and/or the USA bomb an Iranian nuclear facility?
Or North Korean for that matter?
Just asking – sides not taken – exploration of values.
it would be theft, applying rog’s rule
Think, how many are there operating from your list? One of your mates signs off as Thinksy, you as Think.
You will have to get your act(s) together.
oh dear, i’ve been busted having more than 1 thought.
Thinksy was coined by Phil, I adopted it.
Only part right on Pim’s killer, Think. Press reports at the time made it clear that all his previous form was for environmental extremism.
And tell me, does the fact that he was, in your words, “right wing” make his killing more acceptable? If so, then surely some of my less patient mates could use the same rationalisation for bumping off a few “left/green econazi’s”?
And in which case, matey, I would certainly be requesting your name before any further discussion took place.
As for your example of GM crops vs destruction of property, if you had the barest rudimentary grasp of ethical considerations you would know that the essence of a crime lies in the intent behind the action. And in the case of GM there is actually neither “act” nor malicious intent to constitute a crime. It is all entirely hypothetical, a form of thought crime that only exists in your mind, the mind of the accuser, not the mind of the accused.
You remind me of the pervert who examines the ink blots and then accuses his shrink of being a weirdo for having all these filthy pictures.
Anyway the philosophical point is that “is there ever a point where one needs to break the law or be civilly disobedient”
Are there no exceptions?
Ian the murderer acted alone. ie: it was a murder, not an act of terrorism. The murderer was described as politically left-wing and opposed to Pim’s right-wing policies. That is the context in which I described Pim as right-wing. In no way did I suggest that it justified Pim’s murder, nor do I believe that. I didn’t deny that the murderer was widely known to be an animal activist – this caused much confusion as to why he killed Pim. Subsequently the murderer himself claimed to be acting on behalf of the muslims (not the chickens or pigs). It’s also worth taking note of Jennifer’s distinction between animal liberationists and conservations. You blurred this distinction when you described the killer as a “green extremist”. A murder unrelated to environmental issues doesn’t add much to a discussion about eco-terrorism – that was my core point.
Rereading your comment Ian, you seem to be threatening for your mates to bump me off. Along with my real name would you like my home address then? Geez
Can you prove that there has never been or will never be any intentional act to seed non-GM crops with GM? Sounds like a brilliant market penetration strategy to me. Then you could charge royalties.
Thinksy, Think and Think-before-you-rant, How come you are against GM?
Phil asks whether or not civil disobedience can ever be justified. Laws change over time and that process is not always a peaceful one, particularly when groups of people feel that the model of governance is not fairly representing their grievances. eg the Boston Tea Party; the suffragettes
Who could honestly claim that they would never break the law if they believed the means justified the end? The only point of difference would seem to be one of perspective and scale: the precise situation that each person believes justifies disobeying the law. This raises questions about democracy.
Bill I’m not absolutely anti-GM. I simply asked a question about GM above.
Civil disobedience does not equal theft of private property, unless you are a maoist or some other socialist.
Essentially modern environmental movements are more concerned with the acquisition of property rights – property holders may need to take extra precautions to secure their property rights, perspective and scale commensurate with the perceived threat, moral position to be assessed at leisure at an internet group think.
It always amused me that those who advocate the freedom to move between national borders without authority or approval continue to have security fences and deadlocks to their own property.
What if the land tenure is leasehold not freehold ? What rights do landholders and the State have then?
Or what do you do if the cumulative action of some upstream freeholders affects a downstream or down catchment landholder.
The rights of parties entering into an agreement for property use are usually described in the contract document – nearly all disputes concern the failure to properly understand the terms of the contract.
The Douglas Shire Council has adopted a draft planning scheme that removes settlement rights from single-hectare rural residential freehold allotments in the Daintree. Disenfranchised landholders are now being offered a reinstatement of expropriated settlement rights on the conditions that they sell their land to the state government and lease it back for the remainder of their lives with an economic undertaking to restore the block to its original condition upon their death or disassociation.
The argument would be in Queensland that Dept Natural Resources and it’s predecessor – Dept Lands has never made a prosecution under the Lands Act despite some utterly dreadful land management by a few producers. It’s not clear cut. Ian of course will have a strong view. Similar story for mining industry – cyanide in creeks, obligation to revegetate etc.
Government eco-extortion … no interest? How about if it was your own land?
especially it was land that your ancestors had taken fairly & squarely from the aborigines, terra nulla n private property rights n all that
Weeeeellll … it’s an interesting problem. It is the State’s asset (supposedly owned by all of us). If it were my land I wouldn’t have flogged it out. But up and till the point of collapse – flogging pays. There are lots of fence-line management effects out there. Of course some people are in big debt to the banks and need to push more. But whose problem is that ?
And the lease does stipulate a duty of care. Leases will be renewed for longer lease periods in the future if monitoring of land condition is undertaken with some property planning. Of course switched on corporates have been monitoring for the last decade trying to get ahead of the game.
Of course in much of the beef industry anyone more interested in the grass than the cows is obviously of dubious sexuality and a potential communist.
whales don’t eat much grass Phil
Reinvigorating patriotism through exposure to Advance Australia Fair and iconic historical events including Simpson’s donkey … makes terra nullius all the more noticeable by its omission, however, I imagine that even Thinksy resides upon land invested in exchange of fee simple and not necessarily by the good graces of its original inhabitants.
Government eco-extortion of Daintree freehold property confers an unethical covetousness and a slathering of conservation hypocrisy. Whats happening in the Daintree is really no different to what the Colonial office did to australia’s original sovereign inhabitants – stealing land.
yeah, really no different at all, just fewer shooting parties, rapes, stealing of children or eradication of language and culture (ie genocide)
What you describe, Thinksy, would indeed be eco-terrorism. However, like the Animal or Earth Liberation Front extremist movements, there are no shooting parties, rapes, stealing of children or genocide.
What I described was property theft, economic sabotage and harassment. I remain curious about your moral high ground in specific regards to your residential tenure.
Neil, I’d be interested in the details of this Daintree property issue, can you reference any docs?
The details should be freely available to public.
Is this it?
http://www.wettropics.gov.au/mwha/mwha_pdf/periodic_report/WT_Periodic_Report_2002.pdf
“….Maintenance and enhancement of values
Logging has been a prohibited activity in the Property since 1987 and infrastructure associated with this industry has been phased-out, including the closing of over 6,500 km of unformed logging roads and snigging tracks which had a combined cleared area footprint of approximately 2,070 ha.
There have been no clearings associated with new powerline or road construction within the Property since listing (refer to Sections II.5c (iii), (iv) for more details).
There has been a progressive conversion of land tenures within the Property to national park (eg from 14% at time of listing [2] to 32% in 2002) and a progressive reduction in the area of various lease tenures (refer to Section II.4e for more details)
A statutory management plan for the Property has been in place since 1998. The Plan has identified 461,620 ha as being remote from human disturbances and zoned to ensure its protection. A further 414,372 ha has been identified as in a mostly natural state and has been zoned to promote its restoration wherever practical or opportunities arise. A further 18,259 ha has been identified which accommodates existing infrastructure needed
for community services. Such areas have been zoned and regulated to ensure that the impact of activities associated with community services is managed to minimise the effect on the integrity of the Property (refer to Section II.4a (i) for more details).
In the Daintree section of the Property a strategic freehold land acquisition program has been implemented. The program objective was to secure protection of World Heritage values adjacent the Property and protect habitat connectivity. Approximately 2,500 hectares of land has been procured through voluntary surrender agreements or direct purchase. This program, initiated in 1994, has involved the expenditure of over $22 million (refer also Section II.4g; Fig. 2). Other significant parcels of land have been identified in the Daintree Futures Study [9] and will continue to be targeted for purchase or conservation covenanting through other government and private sector funding initiatives.
Conservation management agreements with land-holders are designed to ensure that activities on private land are sympathetic with maintaining important habitat and afford protection for wildlife (refer to Section II.4b,e for more details). Other significant conservation measures have included recovery programs for the endangered southern cassowary, stream dwelling frogs, mahogany glider, northern bettong and spotted-tailed quoll (refer to Sections II.5c (xii), (xiii) for more details) and pest control programs (refer to Section II.5c (vii), (viii) for more details).
There is an active program of rainforest rehabilitation occurring within the region supported or encouraged by the Authority (refer to Section II.5c (i), (ii) for more details)….”
Rog,
I wish it were that simple, but surely you wouldn’t imagine that any level of government would pubicly document its action plan for sabotage and property theft?
About six months ago, Queensland property values were published in the Cairns Post to emphasise the impact of the sea-change phenomenon and in all areas, values had sky-rocketed, bar two: Cape Tribulation and Cow Bay, with an equivalent 0% increase.
The Daintree Futures Study http://www.rainforest-crc.jcu.edu.au/publications/research%20reports/daintreeFuturesRR.htm describes a whole-of-government policy position, which was resoundly rejected by the Wet Tropics Ministerial Council.
The difficulty in providing details is in their over-abundance of feel-good undertakings, threaded with an insidious undertone of theft and impropriety.
Neil, from what I have read the buy back scheme is voluntary;
DAINTREE RAINFOREST FOUNDATION LTD
A.B.N 88 269 097 059
PO Box 871 Mossman Queensland 4873 Australia
Ph 0740989222
Email: drf_chairperson@yahoo.com.au
DAINTREE UPDATE – AUGUST 2005
Douglas Shire Draft Planning Scheme
On August 2, 2005, Desley Boyle, the Qld Minister for Local Government and Planning rejected the amended Draft Planning Scheme, primarily on the grounds that it proposed removal of the Biodiversity and Scenic Amenity Overlay (for both North and South of the Daintree River) and re-instated development rights to all properties north of the Alexandra Range.
The Minister instructed Douglas Shire Council to review and resubmit a Planning Scheme by mid-September 2005 or she would impose another Temporary Local Planning Instrument (TLPI) to place a moratorium on development north of the Alexandra Range and remove the planning process from DSC’s control.
While the Minister’s actions are welcomed, it essential that the State Government be lobbied to ensure that the provisions of the original Draft Planning Scheme relating to removal of development rights north of the Alexandra Range be retained and implemented.
We will attach a ‘form letter’ for Members to modify and send to the Minister with our next Daintree Update (see below).
*** LATE NEWS ***
On 10 August, the Consulting Town Planner presented an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) for Daintree Lowlands in the Settlement Area North of the Daintree Locality to DSC, containing 2 Scenarios.
Scenario 1 involves a Maximum Resident Population = 1400 persons; Spare Capacity for further residential development = 11 lots; and Vacant Land to be purchased/compensation paid/retained by landowner with no development rights = 289 lots.
Scenario 2 involves a Maximum Resident Population = 1500 persons; New Subdivision at Cape Kimberley = Maximum 45 lots; Spare Capacity for further residential development = 162 lots; and Vacant Land to be purchased/compensation paid/retained by landowner with no development rights = 244 lots.
(The above ‘Vacant Land’ numbers, of 289 and 244, are in addition to the approx 100 lots already purchased by the State Govt, Council and Conservation Organisations).
We have yet to fully assess the above Scenarios and associated maps of Management Areas and Conservation Precincts. We will update Members with our findings as soon as possible.
Government Buy Back Program
The Queensland Government, through the Environmental Protection Agency EPA), continues to purchase properties north of the Alexandra Range affected by the current TLPI.
EPA’s remaining funds should be sufficient to purchase a further 60 – 65 properties.
Unfortunately, DSC’s financial capacity to continue land purchases has been removed due to the Qld Supreme Court’s declaration that the $4 Conservation and Infrastructure Management Fund (CIMF) component of the Daintree River Ferry Fee was illegal.
Prior to the declaration, DSC and EPA had purchased a combined total of 64 properties, with another 10 under negotiation.
The Australian Rainforest Foundation (ARF), recipient of $5 million in Commonwealth Government funding, has elected not to purchase any further properties beyond those negotiated under previous funding until the Planning Scheme is finalised. To date the ARF has acquired 13 properties, with a further 6 under negotiation.
As can be noted from the above, the combined purchases of Government and non-government organizations is only likely to achieve conservation of less than 50% of the 437 properties affected by the TLPI.
Given that funding will ultimately dictate the outcome for the Daintree, it essential that either Government provide additional funding or the capacity for continued revenue raising, such as a ‘levy’ on the Daintree River Ferry, say, under the Recreational Areas Management Act.
Annual General Meeting
The Foundation will be conducting the 2004/2005 Annual General Meeting on 2 October 2005.
The AGM is being held slightly later than normal so as to more fully assess progress, and implications, of the Planning Scheme.
Attached is an AGM Agenda and Proxy Voting Form. We would strongly encourage Members to participate in the AGM through use of the Proxy Voting Form.
Tree-kangaroo Corridor
As previously advised, the Foundation has purchased a 5.16 ha property in the Forest Creek area that forms a valuable tree-kangaroo corridor from the southern side of the Alexandra Range to the Forest Creek wetlands.
The Management Committee has elected to name the corridor “Rainforest Rescue Nature Refuge” in recognition of the invaluable support provided by our Conservation Partner Rainforest Rescue.
We know have the opportunity to purchase an adjoining 1 ha property which would, effectively, double the width of the corridor frontage to Forest Creek Road and hence the State Reserve opposite.
The indicative purchase price provided by the current owners is $30000, considerably lower than expected.
The Foundation currently has approximately $20000 available for land purchases and we would therefore welcome any donations to assist in the purchase of the above property.
Donations may be made by cheque or money order, payable to ‘Daintree Rainforest Preservation Fund’ and sent to PO Box 971 Mossman Qld 4873; directly to the “Daintree Rainforest Preservation Fund” (Bank: Bendigo Bank, Fountain Court, Bendigo Vic 3550, BSB: 633-000, A/C No: 113290183, A/C Name: Daintree Rainforest Preservation Fund, and using your Initial and Surname as the deposit ‘Reference’ for issue of a receipt), or by Credit Card using the attached authority.
Thank you for your continued support.
Christopher J. Bennett
Chairperson
Daintree Rainforest Foundation Ltd
In respect to your reference, Rog, and in particular “In the Daintree section of the Property a strategic freehold land acquisition program has been implemented”, land coveted and acquired for inclusion within the WTWHA is, by its very nature, outside the WTWHA. It is not for WTMA, Douglas Shire Council, the Queensland or the Commonwealth Government to redefine the boundaries of World Heritage estate. This is the sole jurisdiction of the World Heritage Committee under the auspice of the IUCN & UNESCO.
The local community recognises its socio-economic potential is inextricably linked to the conservation of the outstanding natural and cultural values of its lands, but government over-enthusiam invariably plunders those outstanding assets in the name of conservation, leaving an ever-poorer potential for the remaining landholders.
Rog, It is not entirely voluntary (acquistion under duress) and yet complusory acquisition is not being pursued. It is a requirement of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia that compulsory acquisition be on just terms.
Your more recent reference from the Daintree Rainforest Foundation is one of a multitude of similar popularist publications that conceal the sordid truth … the end justifyiing the means.
neil, this is all very complex, I just read the GHD report summary 2000 to the Minister that amongst others, recommends;
” A Daintree Land Trust, incorporating government and community representatives, should be established to support compensation and land acquisition programs. This Trust will require seed funding from State or Federal Government and would have the capability to develop sponsorship programs and to recoup costs from property consolidations and land dealings.’
Inevitably governments are either over enthusiastic or under enthusiastic.
The report summary explains that the “Rainforest CRC prepared the Daintree Futures Study between January and July 2000, in partnership with Gutteridge Haskins & Davey (GHD), Cairns and Far North Strategies, Cairns.
The consultant reported to a Steering Committee, endorsed by the Wet Tropics Ministerial Council, comprising representatives of the three levels of Government together with local community and business interests. Community observers attended most meetings.
Substantial stakeholder and community feedback was received during the preparation of the study and during the period for public comment. Appendices 2 – 7 of the Final Report summarise the comments received and the level of public contact.
The Final Report reflects this feedback and outlines the implementation options available under current legislative and administrative provisions.”
Rog, I was one of the two steering committee members from the affected community. The report recommended that 442 absentee landholders have their development rights compulsorily expropriated, without consultation. I was unable to prevent the circulation of a brochure to absentee landlords, stating “that a few priority conservation properties would be voluntarily acquired”.
In the meantime, Council has been illegally taxing visitors to fund a land acquisition program (under the pretence of conservation) and has entered into a relationship with the Queensland Government which supplements the funuds. Landholders will either sell, well below inherent value, or lose all development rights – DURESS!
Both the Queensland Ombudsman and Supreme Court Justice Moynihan found the impost illegal.
Neil you said “Whats happening in the Daintree is really no different to what the Colonial office did to australia’s original sovereign inhabitants – stealing land”. They did much more than just steal land from the aborigines – in light of the other atrocities, today’s ‘eco-terrorists’ look like a feeble bunch of limp-wristed banner wavers. Don’t allow this to come between you and identification with a victim complex though.
I am posting this for Neil, as my site denied him on the basis the following contains ‘questionable content’. Don’t understand why. But anyway, Neil wrote:
Thinksy,
Prior to the Minister’s moratorium on development, young families settled into the area. The school population steadily increased as did its staffing allocation. Now the trend has reversed and as teacher allocations diminish, so do parents consider enrolment at other facilities. The child care centre has ceased operation. Medical services are declining (though this is somewhat of a statewide phenomenon). The state government is subsidisiing tourism to the tune of millions of dollars annually to utilise public reserves whilst simultaneously denying development approvals off-reserve.
The end result is a slow but inevitable starvation. Perhaps not as bloody or dramatic as Antarctic whales or frontier aborigines at the slaughter, but destined for the same conclusion, nonetheless.
Neil.
Accepted Neil. I can imagine that it’s a stressful, unsettling experience and I didn’t mean to trivialise it in anyway.
For the record, Think, the land was taken from blackfellas by the crown. Most squatters were moved on very early in the piece and paid compensation for their improvements. Yes, land was subsequently released by ballot but this came with such conditions that each settler family essentially paid for their land in full.
And every conversion from leasehold to freehold title included a bill for the price of all standing timber on the property. The landowners all paid for the trees that they are now prevented from removing.
Yes, the blackfellas were ripped off, but the entity that did the ripping off was primarily made up, even back then, of an essentially urban constituency who benefited most from that rip-off. And it is now that same urban constituency, trendy Libs, ALP and Green, that now rationalise the confiscation of property rights by accusing the farmers of doing the original act of dispossession.
Reading a bit more on the Daintree land issue; it certainly does appear that a groundswell of urban greens (incl Green Party) has influenced the govt sufficiently for the Crown to act against landholders, ostensibly in the name of the common good and the environment.
QLD Green policy on freehold land;
3. Amend IPA so that a Regional Plan and / or a Local Government Planning Scheme may expressly :
prohibit development, and
regulate development , including limiting and conditioning the timing, location, scale, intensity, type, character and impact of development
designate freehold land and Nature Conservation Act and Land Act tenures exclusively for nature conservation & environmental management functions and uses.
http://www.qld.greens.org.au/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=153
Big Brother?
When I asked the eminent consultant team leader for the Daintree Futures Study, how he could possibly rationalise contradictory recommendations that sought to halve residential traffic to protect cassowaries and at the same time double visitor traffic (for amongst other things) possible cassowary sightings, he replied, “What can I say, except big brother is alive and well in the Daintree.”
But is it not still some sort of a problem. If the Daintree got fully Quaid-developed – would your land values be as high? Would it be paradise lost?
In suburbia there are covenants on new estates to “preserve” the character of an area or development. No shortage of people wanting to buy in.
Is there a balance required – or just let it rip !!
From my point of view Port Douglas is now definitely paradise lost – sux big time. Hate it.
Same in northern NSW – Byron Bay – yech!
Noosa – traffic jam on Hastings Street – but good coffee still.
So for all the regulation – an outsider still sees some aspects of the character of the Daintree seeping away every visit.
So you can see the greenies as the problem or just the symptom of the real problem. Too many buggers wanting to visit and live there. And just too much development.
Just some observations? Solutions ?
One of Neil’s points is that you can leave people in the Daintree – and let them, for example, run small scale ecotourism ventures – while protecting and enhancing world heritage values. Indeed locals will look out for the forest under the right planning scheme.
Instead, government is chasing out local residents and at the same time bringing in large numbers of tourists for one day visits in big buses.
Phil,
Strata titling and the self-aggrandisement of local councillors lost Port Douglas paradise. ‘Saving the Daintree’ is a political goldmine but it comes at the expense of an already small rate base, with an estimated $433,000 lost annually. Of course, these losses are off-set by claims of service provision and infrastructure savings that would be otherwise necessary if full settlement were not opposed. Never mind the ratepayers continued obligation to pay for these services in the ever-decreasing Daintree Cape Tribulation rainforest community. Nevertheless, throughout the entire history of the Save the Daintree Campaign, Council has boasted increased rate-revenue of six million dollars per year through strata titling in Port Douglas.
More than 70% of visitors claim disatisfaction with their Daintree experience due to over-crowding and lack of exposure to wilderness and yet (ironically) the prime-movers of the Save the Daintree campaign dictate the mass-market day visitation experience on artificial structures in degraded forest without any contribution to either conservation or the well-being of the local people. No local intellectual or cultural property and every expense met courtesy of the tax-payer.
QPWS allocated Commercial Activity Permits to enough operators out of Cairns and Port Douglas to carry 700,000 visitors per year and then protected the allocation though the exclusionary influence of a Ministerial moratorium. Ever since, state and federal governments have functioned under a policy that directs all future tourism growth south of the Daintree River. As the only scope for growth is in support of the local people, the policy is completely counter-productive, and yet millions of dollars go into tourism management strategies to conform with this policy objective.
The Daintree, Phil, deserves to be protected. It is undisputably a global treasure that should outrank the Galapagos in terms of its biodiversity values alone, but it needs to be protected from political and bureaucratic sabotage and the inhabitants need to be provided with the maximum possible assistance in modelling a world-class conservation economy.
Most importantly, minimising the impacts of any future development must be honourable and completely free of impropriety.
No argument and you have my full support.