According to Professor Norman Myers earth is experiencing the largest mass extinction in 65 million years with the loss of species more severe than the five mass extinctions of the geological past.
As mentioned at a previous blog post, Tasmania has been listed as one of the hotspots in Australia.
Thinksy provided this link to a list of critically endangered bird species. The list includes three species from Tasmania – the masked owl, the azure kingfisher and the wedge-tailed eagle. Habitat clearing including for pine forest (1), competition with brown trout which have reduced the availability natural prey (2), and shooting (3), are listed as the most likely reasons for decline of the three species respectively.
Alan Ashbarry who describes himself as a Tasmanian researcher with Timber Communities Australia sent in the following note:
“Recent media reports on a new list of 20 hot spots for species extinction of terrestrial mammals are based on a new report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Unfortunately such an important report is available by subscription only and the general public has to rely on snippets fed to it by the media.
Lead author Marcel Cardillo uses phylogenetics to answer questions in ecology and conservation. Phylogenetics treats a species as a group of lineage-connected individuals over time. On this basis it is hardly surprising that the isolated islands of Bass Strait and Tasmania would have a “latent extinction risk”.
The media reports refer to the Convention on Biological Diversity to reduce the rate of world biodiversity loss by 2010, as part of this plan the Conference of Parties to the convention has adopted the following target:
Goal 1. Promote the conservation of the biological diversity of ecosystems, habitats and biomes
Target 1.1: At least 10% of each of the world’s ecological regions effectively conserved.
In Tasmania this target has been achieved and exceeded with the State having 42% of its land mass in conservation reserves. There is no indication that the authors of the Hot Spot report accounted for this outstanding achievement.
If there was it would be unlikely for the report to conclude that “Human population growth in hotspot areas is one of the greatest threats to vulnerable animals,” for Tasmania as human population development is banned in these areas.
The media reports also refer to an environmental scientist Professor Norman Myers claiming that Earth is experiencing the largest mass extinction in 65 million years.
The media report Myers as claiming 33 extinction hotspots around the world, 13 more than the report in the Proceedings of National Academy of Science.
Professor Myers says if governments do not do more, the planet will continue to lose 50 species per day compared to the natural extinction rate of one species every five years. Yet the Professor fails to state that his trip to Australia is partly sponsored by the Federal Government as part of it biological diversity program. He also fails to quote sources for this alarmist claim to determine if it is a real, or a theoretical claim based upon un-described and notional species.”
Alan also sent a couple of links that he said showed that Tasmania and the Bass Strait islands and those other hotspots have the lowest attrition rates for terrestrial mammals.
Maps here: http://audit.ea.gov.au/anra/vegetation/bio_asses/popup.cfm?case_no=fig_6_7.
And see also commentary here: http://audit.ea.gov.au/anra/vegetation/vegetation_frame.cfm?region_type=AUS®ion_code=AUS&info=bio_asses.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
On earlier thread Motty said we need to distinguish between former and current status, ie “distinguish between species that have always been rare and those that have become rare”. I agree, this is important information, ie to compare expanding or shrinking areas and population numbers over time – this is the scientific approach. (eg Koalas might actually be expanding).
Above Alan is uses the concept of Phylogenetics (‘species as a group of lineage-connected individuals over time’) to state that ‘on this basis it is hardly surprising that the isolated islands of Bass Strait and Tasmania would have a “latent extinction risk”‘. Taken a bit further, this argument could be used to suggest that that many of our species are due to go extinct anyway because they’re phylogenetically distinct, old and isolated. I’m not saying that Alan is actually suggesting this, but it exposes the difficulties involved, and the need for caution where our understanding is incomplete.
Alan says Tasmania has achieved its land conservation target but ‘there is no indication that the authors of the Hot Spot report accounted for this outstanding achievement’. Is this referring to an Australian hotspot report? If the species aren’t under threat it’s not a hotspot. Australia’s internationally classified hotspot is SW Aust.
Thinksy,
Thanks for your comment. One of the problems with dealing with snippets in the media is that often we don’t see the full picture.
There are actually two stories about extinction hot spots, the one referring to Tasmania and the Bass Strait Islands, the story and a map of these future hot spots at
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-7.html
that shows latent risk and warns of future hots spots based on future activity.
The second bit of media relates to Professor Norman Myers who says the Earth is experiencing its “Sixth Extinction.”
And can be found at
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Largest_mass_extinction_in_65_million_years_underway%2C_scientists_say
Interestingly he bases his claims on the theory that there are about 10 million species on earth.
The confusion in the media also leads to wrong conclusions such as comments attributed to conservation groups as they commented in the media about the latent risk report:
‘Tasmania listed as extinction hotspot’
The Hobart Mercury (08 March 2006 page 13)
Tasmania has been identified as an international hotspot for future extinction. A scientific study released yesterday lists 20 areas of the world where animals are in peril.
The only area identified in Australia is Tasmania and the Bass Strait islands, where 49 species are in danger. The London-based researchers pinpointed areas of the world where animals are at ”latent risk’ of extinction.
”Latent risk” means the animals are not in immediate danger but the risk is likely to arise soon because of current patterns of human development. Tasmanian conservationists said the study highlighted the destruction caused by land-clearing in Tasmania.
Tasmanian Conservation Trust director Craig Woodfield said Tasmania was the only state in Australia with no comprehensive landclearing controls. ”When you clear habitat you are ensuring birds and animals will never be able to live there again, ” he said.
Wilderness Society campaign co-ordinator Geoff Law said successive governments had been warned about the impacts of land-clearing but had chosen to ignore the evidence. ”Tasmania has become a national and international embarrassment,” Mr Law said.
Protesters angry about logging practices in Tasmania held international rallies at the weekend, with demonstrations outside of Australian embassies in the US, Canada, Japan and Britain.
Thanks Alan. Further, re: the debates on Tassie, I think each ‘side’ is making generally correct stand-alone points but arguing from a different basis. eg conservation groups base their points on outcomes if recent trends continue unabated, ie forest clearing continued for perpetuity. (This is the basis to the news story above). Their opposers point to the status quo. Neither set of ‘facts’ will remain constant though, and the battle for influence intensifies.
It seems fairly clear that Tasmanian Conservation Trust director Craig Woodfield is unaware of the distinction between clearing and harvesting. The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory for landuse change and forestry puts the average clearing rate for Tasmania over the decade from 1990 to 1999 at only 940 hectares per annum.
You may recall earlier on this blog, see; http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/cat_forestry.html
Tasmania had 3,207,250ha of forest of which 1,442,440ha was in reserves and 1,764,810ha was in State forests and private forests. And of the latter, another 500,000ha was identified as not to be logged under management plans. Most of this additional 500,000ha not to be logged is either riparian zones, wetlands or very steep land.
Page 86 of the Forestry Tasmania Annual Report provides more detailed data on all forest and non-forest land in the state. http://www.forestrytas.com.au/forestrytas/pdf_files/annual_report_2005.pdf
And the most interesting point of note is that total private land is only 2,664,000 ha or 39% of the state. The other 61% is either in reserves or state forests which, apart from 100,000 ha of plantations, can never be permanently cleared. About 1,600,000 ha (38.6%)of the 4.15 million ha of public land is non-forest, made up of scrub, moorland rock and lakes.
Moreover, some 1,681,000 ha of private land (63%) is non-forest land that is either cleared land or scrub, moorland etc, and this leaves 855,000 ha of private native forest and 128,000 ha of private plantations. So at least 37% of private land is still contributing to habitat services.
All up, even if we assume that all non-forest on private land is cleared land with no lakes or wetlands etc, then this 1,681,000 ha amounts to only 24.68% of the state. The remaining 75.32% continues to provide much the same habitat services as they did prior to white settlement.
Some clearing may take place in reserves and State Forests for roads and power lines etc but most will take place on private land. And a portion of private clearing will be of scrub and other non-forest. But even if we assume that all clearing is of private forest then the annual 940 hectares represents only 0.11 of 1% of the 855,000 hectares of this forest. It would take 455 years to halve this area and reduce the total state contributive habitat to 69% of total area.
Provided the private forests of Tasmania can continue to be managed for timber production in perpetuity, there is no reason to conclude that the private resource will suffer any significant reduction in area.
And this, when combined with the very large portion of the state in public tenure and managed for existing ecosystem services, there is absolutely no basis for concluding that Tasmania has a greater risk of species extinction than any other part of the world.
Indeed, the only conclusion that could be drawn by reasonable men and women in full possession of the facts, is that the risk of species extinction in Tasmania is substantially less than just about anywhere else in the world.
Professor Meyers is either grossly ill-informed or an unreasonable man if he believes otherwise.
Ian you’re boxing your own shadow again. Where in these links has Myers claimed that Tasmania is a hotspot? Or are you off-topic, talking about a different professor by the name of ‘Meyers’?
As I was writing this post quickly late yesterday afternoon (to get to my daughter’s music concert on time) I thought I need to check the distribution of that azure kingfisher.
I just had a bit of a look about the internet and it has a distribution that extends right along the east coast of Australia and includes Papau and New Guinea.
I’m sure i’ve seen it west of Ingham and perhaps also a Binna Burra.
It only appears to be critically endangered in Tasmania and otherwise has an extensive distribution and is fairly common in places like Tin Can Bay.
So its not about to go extinct as a species – but has made it onto the critically endangered list for Australia?
Thinksy,
Lets just examine your thought ‘conservation groups base their points on outcomes if recent trends continue unabated, ie forest clearing continued for perpetuity. (This is the basis to the news story above). Their opposers point to the status quo. Neither set of ‘facts’ will remain constant though.’
My article was based on government policy that manages forests now and into the future including the amount of land in reserves, but also fully aware of the Permanent Forest Estate Policy (PFEP) and the Private Forest Reserve Program.
The Tasmanian Conservation Trust is also fully aware of both policies, as an employee was contracted for four days a week in recent years to be the research officer for the Scientific Advisory Group (CARSAG) for the PFRP that comprised specialists with expertise in biological and information sciences. It had responsibility for assessing the scientific merits of proposals and for maintaining a set of maps of candidate areas, which showed reservation priorities for the Program.
CARSAG was asked to review the PFEP and recommended an increase from 80% to 95% retention of the Forest estate recorded in 1996 for the Regional Forest Agreement. This recommendation is now the policy of both the State and Federal Governments and is a very effective land clearing control. Therefore they know that forest clearing cannot continue for perpetuity
This same TCT employee funded by Government was also an author of the State Government’s State of Environment Report in a chapter dealing with land clearing and biological diversity. (Recently Four Corners thought they had a story about how lobby groups influence Government policy – it was nothing compared to this example of the TCT setting Government agenda and being funded for their actions.)
By way I am not an opposer to conservation groups, but an individual that questions and tests public statements about the management of our environment. All of us not just conservation groups have an interest in managing our environment. As timber workers and koalas know ‘No Tree – No Me’
Thinksy, the post said, “The media report Myers as claiming 33 extinction hotspots around the world, 13 more than the report in the Proceedings of National Academy of Science”.
From this I concluded that Myers, not Meyers, agreed with the NAS’s 20 and had 13 more of his own. But really, all that data in my post and all you can come up with is a spelling error?
Which part of “75.32% intact Tasmanian habitat” do you not understand?
Which part of “455 years to reduce this to 69%” do you not understand?
Exit Hotspot, exit Myers, exit National Academy of Sciences, knuckles dragging.
Not only is Alan right to point out the massive reservation of 42% of the Tasmania’s land but there is also off reserve management. A major tool to protect endangered species in Tasmania is the Forest Practices Code. This code makes a significant commitment to the preservation of natural and cultural values. Already it has introduced effective measures that will lead to the recovery of endangered species. For example the Wedge tail eagle, was almost shot out of existence. The Wedge Tailed eagle is now wholly protected.
Thanks to the forest practices code the forest industry is undertaking detailed surveys for nesting sites for this bird prior to logging on public and private land. Once found the nests are protected by significant buffer zones, and forest activities curtailed during the breeding season.
In 1997 there were 294 confirmed individual nests in Tasmania. Of these nests, 106 are known to be active, 10 are obsolete, and 228 have had their grid coordinates verified on the ground. There were a further 94 suspected nest sites and many areas of potential habitat containing no known nests.
As at the end of July 2003, there were now about 660 known Wedge-tailed eagle nests in Tasmania, with just less than half of these are active. These nests produce about 140 successfully fledge chicks each year.
Forestry Tasmania spends over a quarter of a million dollars each year in pre-operational surveys and protection measures to ensure the eagle remains viable. This money is partly funded by it sales of pulp logs for woodchip.
Lets celebrate this win – win situation.
It should also be noted that a breeding pair of Wedgetails can have a very serious impact on lamb survival rates on adjoining farmland. But their main supply of food is the lovely little fluffy Gliders and Possums with big round eyes and gentle fingers that squeeze your finger. They are particularly fond of adolescents setting out on their own for the first time in the big wild world.
I hope you all remember to thank, and preferably pay, the farmers for their valuable contribution towards the on-going survival of this species and in reducing predatory pressure on our arboreal mamals.
Well it’s factored in when I buy the lamb chops isn’t it. We poor suffering ecologically disconnected ignoramuses called urbanites condemned to shop at Coles and Woolies. And how come tomatoes go up the day after it rains? And is fatty lamb good for wedgies – maybe it’s toxic.
Wedgetail eagles are diurnal. Lovely little fluffy gliders and possums are nocturnal.
Ian how quickly you forget your own bushlaw libel and defamation accusations. You slagged off Myers on a vacuous basis – rambling about Tassie extinctions when there was nothing connecting his hotspots & Tassie in the media.
So, there’s a few more hotspots? It’s big bloody place, you’re not so dumb as to insist therefore it must include Tassie so drop the pathetic defence. You’re up for defamation – see you in your favourite Gumnut court then, under judge Butcher Bird. You’ll retain your usual defending attorney Galah no doubt.
Gosh, Thinksy, reads like a dummy spit to me. I gave detailed evidence why at least one of the so-called hotspots, Tasmania, could not reasonably be regarded as any such thing and you attempt to write it off as “vacuous”?
And Libby, are you trying to imply that Wedgetails don’t hunt at dawn and dusk? I think you may find that the reason the little fuzzies like holes in trees is because they prefer to sleep where the Wedgies can’t see them. But that isn’t evidence that they never do.
Foxes, dogs, cats, goannas, dingoes, pythons, quolls, owls, Tasmanian Devils, ghost bats and antechinus are recorded predators of gliders and possums. Grey shrike thrush and forest raven have been observed disturbing and capturing feathertail gliders from their nesting hollows, however these birds are both very sleek in design with plier-like bills. Gliders in general nest in deep hollows and arise and retire during hours of darkness, when raptors like wedgetail eagles are snoozing, however, ringtail possums are known to arise earlier and retire later (late dawn and dusk), with wedgetail eagles being cited as only an ocassional predator.
Ian you regularly offer up valuable insights on trees, water balance, and fire. At times you get very specific about climate change. Why then is your contribution to this discussion on biodiversity so shallow?
All you’ve offered on biodiversity is a static, isolated observation that a small number of species thrived on a specific area of regrowth (other contributing factors? what about other species numbers?). By itself, not much.
It’s saddening that an smart, informed forester like yourself doesn’t have anything substantial to contribute to a biodiversity conversation. If you do, please share it because you have a geniune audience willing to listen.
I’m terribly sorry, Thinksy, was this a biodiversity conversation? I could have sworn it started as a sequence of cheap shots at my mates in the state where everyone wears two hats. And I thought some pretty clear evidence was provided to establish that whatever the Tasmanians are doing, threatenning species was not one of them.
There is quite a bit to be said on biodiversity conservation and I have two or three lengthy papers on the topic but the problem is how to cut them down into a format suitable for this forum.
But I have pointed out on other trails that almost the entire suite of forest food chains are enhanced on disturbed sites. Furthermore, I am waiting on a critique of a Landholders Institute submission on the Qld forestry code that has been promised by DNRM and EPA. But nothing seems forthcomming, yet.
Also a post en retard on connectivity. Best just watch this space.
Your Tasmanian mates have 2 heads? Such enhanced cognitive ability may explain why they want so fervently to protect their biodiversity.
Ian you’re not a person to mince words. If there are clear messages in your longer papers then you can put them across succinctly in a short post (with references as footnotes). You’re welcome to email them to me.
How can you be annoyed for being asked to respond to a few simple questions that directly flows from your own statement about green groups being nothing more than sweet poor soles? Again just in case you forget what you said
“as for a Green Machine – jeepers the few collective meetings I’ve attended – couldn’t organise a chook raffle, scraping for funds, suffering burnout. Most local conservation groups don’t look that well heeled to me”.
Is it that you find it a bit uncomfortable to accept that there is a very well heeled organized green machine? Organized to the point that it has been able to lever massive forest lock up deals with Federal and state political party’s, again Sen Richardson”s Book, tells the story,
Or do I take it that you accept that the green machine is really a multi million dollar marketing business with the selling brand of “the world’s largest remaining tract of pristine, old growth, tall-eucalypt forest”
Regarding your questions about old growth management hopefully the following facts will help you gain an understanding of the complete picture about Tasmania.
Fact 1 Tasmania has a land mass of 6,840,000ha
Fact 2 Tasmania”s total land mass in conservation reserves is 2,935,000ha (42%)
Fact 3 Included in Tasmania”s total land mass is a total forest cover of 3,207,250ha
Fact 4 Tasmania”s total forest cover in reserve is 1,442,440ha (45%) (This is part of the total land mass in reserve)
Fact 5 Tasmania”s existing old growth forest cover is 1,246,000ha (this is part of the total forest cover)
Fact 6 Tasmania”s existing old growth forest reserved is 977,480ha (this is part of the total forest reserved) There is an additional private land 25,000ha of old growth to be considered for voluntary reservation.
Fact 7 Tasmania”s assessed high quality wilderness is 1,943,570ha
Fact 8 Tasmania”s assessed high quality wilderness reserved is 1,885,300ha (97%)
Phil do you agree that Tasmania”s conservation achievement s are world class when the conservation target set by the International Convention on Biological Diversity is just 10%.
Why we still harvest old growth is to provide the high quality timbers that I’m sure you benfit from. The strength and durability of these timbers comes from slow growth. Quick grown plantations don’t have these qualities but are ideal for producing paper products that I’m sure you also benefit from.
Also rest assured old growth is renewable for if it wasn’t we would not be having this debate today.
Over to you
General relevance to recent discussions on the greens in Tassie, from today’s Crikey:
3. A religious sect campaigns in Tassie
Margaretta Pos in Hobart writes:
A shadowy religious sect has entered the Tasmanian election campaign, spending thousands of dollars on half-page ads in newspapers decrying the Greens’ policies in the lead-up to the March 18 state election. The ads were authorised by a farmer from a small town in north east Tasmania, Roger Unwin.
Contacted by Crikey this morning, Unwin confirmed he was a member of the Exclusive Brethren. He placed the ads because of concern about “moral degradation in the world today” and concern that the Greens’ policies “undermined Tasmanian families”. The ads zero in on Greens policies on sex issues, like sex change operations to be funded by Medicare, and on drugs, such as the trial of prescribed heroin to registered users. “As a family man, I am seeking to alert every unsuspecting voter of these policies that will ruin our families and society in the future,” Unwin says in the ad.
The Exclusive Brethren reportedly spent $500,000 in the last New Zealand election, campaigning against both the Greens and Labor, and more than $US 500,000 in the last US election, shoring up support for George W Bush. The world head of the sect, who rejoices in the title Elect Vessel of God, is wealthy Sydney businessman Bruce Hales. Hales lives in Prime Minister John Howard’s electorate of Bennelong and reportedly prophesied the end of the world if Bush and Howard were not re-elected.
Australian Greens leader Bob Brown told Crikey this morning the Exclusive Brethren had pumped money into anti-Greens ads and pamphlets in the last federal election, and in particular, targeted Greens Tasmanian Senate candidate Christine Milne.
“There is an international link-up,” Brown says. “They have supported the far Right with huge amounts of money, nationally, in the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand, without saying who they are, and are now secretly intervening in Tasmania and supporting the Liberals, some of whose pamplets are very similar. As a church group they are deliberately misleading the electorate by publicising Greens drugs policies which changed months ago, and are now very similar to both Liberal and Labor policies.”
The Exclusive Brethren – so-called because of a desire to keep away from evil – is a breakaway sect of the conservative Plymouth Brethren, or Open Assembly. The group has a rigid code of conduct based on a strict reading of The Bible. There are thought to be 70,000 members in English-speaking countries, tightly controlled by a few individuals. Curiously, given their foray into politics under Hales, who became world leader in 2002, the Exclusive Brethren code prohibits members from watching TV, reading newspapers, accessing the internet, joining the armed forces, standing for elected office or voting in elections.
The editor of Tasmanian Times, Lindsay Tuffin, grew up in a Plymouth Brethren family in a small town in north west Tasmania. He left as a teenager but remained a Christian. Tuffin told Crikey he was alarmed by the Exclusive Brethren’s move into the political arena: “It’s very dangerous. They’re a sect which rails against the evils of modern society and exercises extreme, control freak style moral and social authority over members, who are made to feel unsafe outside the sect. It’s the height of hypocrisy for a group which excludes itself from the mainstream to insidiously try to influence how people vote.”
So its OK for “far left green” groups to influence Tasmanian elections, but it is not OK for “far right religious” groups to do the same.
The quote, “They’re a sect which rails against the evils of modern society and exercises extreme, control freak style moral and social authority over members, who are made to feel unsafe outside the sect”, reads like the job description of the WWF, the ACF, the Wentworth Group and the ALP Left Faction.
reconsidering yr membership?
could it be the Elusive Brethren under Maxine Mc Kews car?
generic meridia .