In Matthew Denholm’s article in Saturday’s Australian, Greens Senator Bob Brown describes a Howard Government proposal to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999, as “…an absolutely pivotal moment in Australian environmental history.”
In a federal court case brought by Senator Brown, Justice Shane Marshall found Forestry Tasmania’s exemption from the EPBC Act did not apply at Wielangta.
Under the EPBC Act, a person or corporation must not take an action that is likely to, or will have, a significant impact on a listed threatened species included in the endangered category. The threatened species in this case include the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle, the broad-toothed stag beetle and the swift parrot. Under another section of the same act, however, approval is not needed for forestry operations permitted by Regional Forest Agreements (RFA).
The RFA definition of “protect” lay at the centre of contention. The applicant submitted that ‘agrees to protect’ means ‘deliver protection of’ and not ‘agrees to try and protect’ or ‘consider protecting’.
According to the article, Forestry and Conservation Minister, Senator Abetz, said the judgment appeared to create a definition of “protect” that went far beyond that envisaged by commonwealth and state governments. Amendments to the act and the RFA might be necessary and could constitute a speedier way of returning certainty than appealing against the decision.
Senator Brown is quoted as saying “the Government would need to rewrite the EPBC Act to get around the ruling and most likely withdraw from international biodiversity conventions.”
As ratified treaties bind Australia in international law, the EPBC Act is constructed in conformity with its international obligations. The Commonwealth Constitution does not provide the Parliament with specified powers to legislate in respect to the environment in any way, other than under the Section 51(xxix) External Affairs power.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
That is , the LATEST ” absolutely pivotal moment ” of evil skullduggery by the Prince of Darkness – I think Bob has made similarly grandiose and dramatic accusations previously……
Mind you , he’s ONLY motivated by love of the environment ; political rhetoric is beneath him.
Ratified Treaties might bind Australia in international law, but they don’t automatically bind people under domestic law. The parliament consciously chose to write the law so that it related to a range of international conventions.
If the government were to seek to re-write it so that ‘protecting endangered species’ became ‘protecting endangered species when convenient,’ or ‘where feasible while still letting us build/log/farm/drive/etc’, it would rather defeat the purpose of having a law at all. We may as well save everybody the red tape and pretence.
Senator Abetz might think defining ‘protect’ to mean ‘protect’ goes beyond what the government intended, but as a key person in bringing the EPBC into existence, I can say it certainly doesn’t go beyond what I intended. It is after all Parliaments that pass laws, not governments.
I should note for the record that Bob Brown voted against the EPBC Act coming into existence in 1999 and stated that those who supported it in the Senate were (among other things) “signing a death warrant for the forests”.
The interesting aspect of the EPBC Act is that it has attempted to circumvent the fundamental legal convention that laws do not operate rerospectively. This convention is most visible in the existing use provisions and the definition of development as being limited to a new use of land or a material change in an existing use.
This was put in place because no body politic has ever, willingly, and with fully informed consent, granted any government the power to extinguish existing uses or to deprive people of the rights to continue the activities they have already lawfully commenced. To grant this power to any parliament would be tantamount to granting the power to confiscate property and extinguish capital.
But the green movement, and it seems, assorted well meaning pond life like the soon to be ex-Senator, have attempted to weasle their way around this convention by way of powers to regulate. And as with so many of the tools of the less than competent, they came up with a blunt instrument wielded indiscriminately by the ignorant.
The fact is that the harvesting of these Tasmanian Forests had always been clearly defined as part of the existing use as it had been well documented as being “set aside” for that purpose as part of a long term harvest and regeneration cycle.
And as with all abuses of both process and principle, the ruling now confirms that the so-called regulatory power is fully capable of being abused to the point where the existing lawful use has been extinguished.
Ultimately it must be left to reasonable men and women to determine the true cause and effect relationship over time between the claimed threatened species and harvesting within a 80 to 100 year regeneration cycle.
The species mentioned are not limited in their extent to coupes that have never been harvested. Many other threatened species have demonstrated a marked preference for regenerating forest stands and in some cases have reached highest stocking rates in stands that have had next to zero so- called biodiversity protection measures.
But even if these species were dependent for their continued viability on unharvested coupes, there is a more than adequate reserve system to achieve this.
But don’t mind me. The Green movement is destined to destroy the Australian environment in much the same way that the ideological left destroyed the lives of half the world last century.
They both have a modus operandi that includes fraudulent mandates, disregard for core principles, abused power and authority, disregard for basic rights and an enormous capacity to substitute doctrine for fact and delusion for real outcomes.
So we have an EPBC Act that can now extinguish a major portion of the communities capital on a flimsy pretext of protection of species while 750,000 hectares of contiguous habitat is destroyed by an entirely foreseeable, and preventable outbreak of state sponsored broadscale clear firing.
So tell us all, Andrew, how can a few hundred hectares of dispersed harvest and regeneration activity meet the character, scale and intensity tests as “development” while 750,000 contiguous hectares of broadscale clear firing does not.
I wouldn’t be listing the EPBC Act on your resume after the next election if I were you.
We haven’t seen much from the TCA boys lately hey
I reckon one or two are looking at some harvesting again in our water catchments particularly after wide spread Victorian bushfires but I say it all depends on us finding another umpire and a more universal public acceptance of any accreditation process.
Water and fire issues in continued drought conditions like we have in SE Australia (and Tasmania) must dominate the agenda for some time yet.
Give us your details of the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle, the broad-toothed stag beetle and the swift parrot that prefer to live in regularly logged, unprotected tassie forests Motty.
Wouldnt your reasonable person, if you could find one, expect ‘protect’ to mean do something real to protect? Senator Abetz looks stupid and dishonest in suggesting that the guvmint’s intention was for ‘protect’ to mean ‘don’t protect’.
Andrew,
As ratified treaties bind Australia in international law, Parliament has little choice but to enact implementing legislation. But let us not overlook the political capital in this course of action.
Internationally binding environmental campaigns have been choreographed to influence election outcomes. In 1983, the Hawke Labor Party campaigned on the Tasmanian anti-dam platform and in 1987 it went to election with a policy to list the Wet Tropics as a World Heritage site and to halt logging.
In each case the nomination and inscription were prerequisite for the enactment of implementing domestic legislation.
As I see it, the only way domestic legislation can be amended to fall short of fulfilling Australia’s international obligations, is to withdraw from the treaty … with whatever electoral backlash follows.
Indeed, if any person or corporation (especially a government department) functions in non-conformity with the statutory obligations under the relevant convention, then it is comforting to know that the EPBC Act has the injunctive power to prevent continuation of the non-conforming function.
QPWS, for example, has a statutory obligation to provide, to the greatest possible extent, for the permanent protection of a national park’s natural condition and its cultural resources and values (the cardinal principle).
However, in the Wet Tropics WHA, for example, we know that the enacting legislation provides sanctuary to some 60,000 feral pigs with devastating associated impacts that are completely incongruous with Australia’s WH obligations.
Perhaps, under the EPBC Act, these WH values can be provided with injunctive relief from the perverse protection of feral pigs that QPWS provides.
Ian,
Section 522B of the EPBC Act does not apply to certain actions with prior approval specifically authorised under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a self-governing Territory, before the commencement of this Act.
The Federal Court formed the view that the relevant forestry operations would be, and have been, carried out otherwise than in accordance with the RFA.
Where did I claim that the three species preferred regularly disturbed forest, Pinxie? I did suggest that certain other threatened species, (eg Yellow Belly Gliders), have shown a preference for regenerating forest but I limited my statement on the three species concerned to point out that they still use regenerating coupes.
In fact, the burden of proof rests squarely on Brown to demonstrate that the Eagle in particular, with a home range in excess of 100,000 hectares, will not prey on regular food species when they happen to be found in the regrowth part of the Tasmanian forest mosaic.
Such a reluctance on the Eagle’s part would be quite remarkable given their known propensity to derive habitat services, (ie food) from young lambs found on totally cleared land.
But even more galling is the ignorance of the court in playing Brown’s semantic game based on an implied definition of “protection” that has been stretched to mean absolute zero impact on habitat.
Yet, this same definition of protection does not extend to require even modest mitigating steps to prevent the recent, serial, 750,000 hectares of broadscale clear firing in Victoria.
If Brown’s absolute definition of protection was applied there then the entire public sector fire management regime would be listed as a “threatening process”.
It is not. So we have a ruling under the EPBC Act that defines small coupe harvesting followed by active regeneration, to minimum performance standards, and minimal subsequent disturbance, as an absence of protection.
Meanwhile, some 750,000 hectares of serial and frequent broadscale clear firing with absolutely zero assistance to regeneration and continual subsequent disturbance, is apparently regarded by Brown, the courts and the bimboscenti as a range of impacts that do not pose any threat to a number of listed threatened forest dwelling species.
So Neil, the court has been in serious error in their application of a definition of “protection” that is so vague and far reaching that any application of it, by any authority, would constitute an abuse of, and improper exercise of, power.
But not to worry. The green movement has a destiny to take the Australian environment back to “year zero”. The general public will end up with the environment they deserve. But they had best hope it comes sooner rather than later so we might still have enough people left who remember how to restore a forest.
Neil – “As ratified treaties bind Australia in international law, Parliament has little choice but to enact implementing legislation.”
This is wrong. There are many Treaties Australia has ratified where we have not enacted implementing legislation. Whether we should or not is another matter.
Whether the Wielangta forest decision holds up under appeal is an open question – my feeling is it is quite possbile it won’t. However, there’s not much doubt that (a) existing operations pose a threat to some endangered species, and (b)prior to the EPBC being enacted, there was minimal scope to legally enforce obligations under international conventions such as RAMSAR, JAMBA, CAMBA and the threatened species aspects of the Convention on Biological Diversity – even though Australia was a party to all these.
The EPBC Act is far from perfect, but as you say, is comforting to know that it has some injunctive powers. But the point is those powers did not exist until the Act did, and it was by no means automatic that the Act would come into being. Indeed, it very nearly didn’t get through internal approval within the Coalition at the time, and I have pointed out the irony that if it had been up to Bob Brown (and the ALP), it would not have come into being at all – which would have meant no court case win for Bob Brown.
The EPBC Act has ben a major leap forward in enabling enforcment of environmental protection, depsite it being relatively poorly administered. It seems that Ian Mott prefers to have people such as Bob Brown rather than myself in the Senate, but regardless of his advice, I will certainly be claiming my key role in bringing the EPBC into being.
Some Treaties (such as the USA-AUS Free Trade Agreement) require domestic legislative enactment, but many do not. Nor does the fact that the administering of such legislation might breach a Treaty necessarily have any legal weight (e.g. Australia’s flagrant breaches of the Refugees Convention is not something where a remedy can be found through the Courts). It depends almost completely on the domestic law.
Following the Tasmanian Dam case, it has been clear that adopting a Treaty gives the Commonwealth a clear head of power to legislate if it chooses. That doesn’t mean it will or must.
It wasn’t the world heritage convention which enabled the dam to be stopped. That had been ratified, but Fraser refused to pass legislation to give himself the power to stop the dam. It took the Hawke government to agree to pass such laws (using the legislative template that had already been introduced into the parliament by the Democrats).
Ian, I’m always happy to have a constructive dialogue, but I not going to waste my time responding to ideologically blinkered nonsense.
With respect to all posters, the article heading this discussion is inaccurate in its analysis of Justice Marshall’s decision. While his acceptance of the meaning of ‘protect’ as going beyond maintenance or slowing decline was important, it was not key – given, in a sense, that this is obvious. What was critical was his interpretation of the function of RFAs as they relate to EPBCA.
Areas covered by RFAs were exempted from application of the EPBCA, but not because of something so blunt or simple as existing use provisions. The RFA, with its Comprehensive Adequate Reserve system – intended to reflect the JANIS criteria – was meant to function in such a way that it would implement and enforce Australia’s threatened species and biodiversity obligations. Trusting this purpose, and to avoid Commonwealth interference or delay in State Affairs, RFA areas were excluded from the EPBCA approval process, because they were meant to be managed in a parallel manner, protecting the same values as intended by the EPBCA.
Marshall’s ruling is stunning in its clarification of the issue, and its tracing of the flow of obligation from international obligations to domestic practice. While the Federal Government frequently boasts what a wonderful and world-leading piece of legislation the EPBCA is, they are forever undermining it. In fact, rather than the Federal Environment Minister using it as a powerful tool to create certainty and positive outcomes, its major positive usage has been in forcing that Minister, through court, to accept his obligation in certain major decisions, such as the Nathan Dam and Flying Fox cases. Orwellian, really.
Question to Andrew Bartlett – I agree that there is a chance of reversal, or likelihood of the typical “we don’t like that decision” legislation, but having read the case, where do you feel the decision’s greatest weakness is?
Hi Andrew,
Can you see the EPBC Act being sufficient to help species such as the Mary River Cod, Mary River Turtle and Queensland Lungfish with regards to the proposed Traveston Dam?
The judgment and some of the interpretations already posted seem to me to be legal gobbledygook, and perhaps we need to have a law that requires judgment to be in plain English and understandable to the lay person.
Two observations that may be relevant are:
The Honourable Justice Marshall in his Reasons for Judgment states at paragraph 297
“The Biodiversity Convention referred to by the Full Court in Queensland Conservation Council underpins the EPBC Act. It obliges Australia to take steps to promote conservation and the recovery of threatened species; see Arts 8(d), (e) and (f).”
Why has he only selected this Article and then only 3 of the clauses?
Why does the reasons for judgment ignore:
(a) Establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity;
(b) Develop, where necessary, guidelines for the selection, establishment and management of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity;
(c) Regulate or manage biological resources important for the conservation of biological diversity whether within or outside protected areas, with a view to ensuring their conservation and sustainable use;
Perhaps Justice Marshall was not aware of the 2010 targets of this convention in relation to PROTECTION being:
“Focal Area: Protect the components of biodiversity
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.
Target 1.2: Areas of particular importance to biodiversity protected
As the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement as amended achieves the reservation of 45% of its native forest. Then surely it must satisfy the requirement of the treaty and of the subsequent Commonwealth Act to implement that treaty. It would appear that the judgment selects to rely on another interpretation of protection than the one found in the Convention.
The judgment also seems to be deficient that whilst it asks the separate questions:
Has the State protect the three species by applying relevant management prescriptions? and ‘Has the State protected the three species through the CAR Reserve System?
It has not asked the combined question “Has the State protected the three species ‘through the CAR Reserve System or by applying relevant management prescriptions’
This quote being the requirement of clause 68 of the RFA that the judgment appears to indicate that the State has breached.
Great posts Andrew: People tend to forget there was a step by step process in place leading to the Tasmanian Dam solution too. That began while Don Chipp was still a Liberal and Sir Garfield Barwick was head of the ACF.
If I recall correctly Malcolm Fraser was pushed close to international treaties back in the 1970’s over sand mining versus the environment in QLD.
However I believe the most important issue regarding international treaties and this latest Tasmanian case with the operation of their RFA is our leadership in the eyes of the world in dealing correctly with vexed environment problems from any point of view.
Carbon Sync, my usual qualifier to such questions is “I’m not a lawyer, but …”, although as we know different lawyers give varying opinions anyway. As you say, there is a clause in the EPBC which seeks to exempt RFAs – (despite an unsuccessful attempt to remove this exemption from the legislation) – the rationale being that RFAs are by definition meant to have already gone through the necessary environmental assessments.
Sect 38 of the EPBC Act says that Part 3 of the Act, dealing with the requirements for environmental approvals, does not apply “to an RFA operation that is undertaken in accordance with an RFA”.
My shorthand understanding of the Judge’s finding is that this exemption only applies where the practical implementation of the RFAs themselves is adhered to. It appears the Judge is trying to asses whether the foresty operations under an existing RFA were occuring in accordance with that RFA. Where they were found to operate outside this, then the exemption from the EPBC’s requirements no longer applies and the obligations regarding threatened species (and presumably other matters of National Environmental Signficance) come into play.
I wouldn’t call it a ‘weakness’ in the judgement (although I guess that could be cos I like the judgement), but the general area I fear an appeal will target is suggesting the RFA exemptions under Section 38 of the the EPBC should be interpreted in a more limited way – that is, RFAs can ignore the EPBC no matter how much environmental obligations under the RFA are being breached. That is, ‘exempt’ means ‘exempt no matter what we then do’, rather than ‘exempt provided we then operate in accordance with the RFA’.
As you also note, some of the biggest successes of the EPBC have relied on third parties launching court action to require compliance with the Act because the Minister wouldn’t do it himself – something else which couldn’t be done under previous laws as there were no ‘third party appeal’ provisions. Bob Brown’s success (thus far) in this case is an example. The best law in the world still relies on it being implemented and administered properly, and it less than ideal for people to have to take the risk of launching court action to enforce it (although better than not having the ability to even try).
In effect, the third party provisions of the EPBC are being used to ensure the environmental obligations of the RFA are being fulfilled.
As to Libby’s question about “the EPBC Act being sufficient to help species such as the Mary River Cod, Mary River Turtle and Queensland Lungfish with regards to the proposed Traveston Dam”, my short answer is yes, there is no doubt the EPBC Act gives sufficient power to the federal minister to stop the dam, and the facts regarding the dam’s impact on threatened species – especially the lungfish – are quite strong. However, although the Act has the power to halt the dam, and the facts back up valid use of that power, it still comes down to a minisiterial decision, which means it is never guaranteed that he will decide to stop the dam.
I believe there is no serious doubt that Traveston dam will have a major, quite possibly terminal effect on the last major breeding sites of the lungfish. While Ministers have shown a preference for requiring mitigating actions to alleviate the potential harm of proposed developments, it’s a bit hard to see how this could be done with the Traveston Dam. You can’t half build a dam, and a dam by its nature will destroy the type of conditions of a stable riverbank environment and water flows that appear to be essential for lungfish to breed in the wild. So putting the cod and the turtle to one side for a minute, the lungfish is not just endangered, it is of immense genetic signficance – it would be an evolutionary ‘missing link’ if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s been found. I understand it puts the evolutionary signficance of the recently discovered Wolli Pine in the shade. SO without waxing further about the lovely lungfish, suffice to say it’s (a) more significant elologically than you’re average threatened species, and (b) has a high risk of its sole reminaing reliable breeding grounds being totally buggered up.
That’s a long winded way of saying there’s little doubt the EPBC gives definite powers to the federal Minister to block the dam on the grounds of major unavoidable imnpact on a key threatened species (before you even consider all the other threatened species and the downstream impacts on world heritage values and possibly RAMSAR sites or migratory birds). However, just because the federal environment Minister CAN stop the dam under the EPBC, it doesn’t mean he will. The decision will be his, but if the facts are such that there’s some doubt or comflicting data, it’s one where a ‘reasonable person’ could then come to either conclusion, which would make it hard to appeal against a decision allowing the dam to go ahead. That’s where pulling together every single piece of science and information that backs the case of its environmental impacts and getting it before the Minister or his delegates is crucial. (remebering that the process will take more than a year, which means after the federal election, so no one knows who the final decision making Minister might be).
Gavin, re your mention of Fraser Island, I think sand mining was stopped there by the federal Fraser government (no relation as far as I know) at the end of 1976, well before World heritage listing of the Island in around 1992. Fraser had to use his government’s export control powers, which weren’t really laws written with environmental protection in mind (some money in compensation for the Bjelke-Petersen government probably smoothed the way a bit too and prevented a possible court challenge). Of course, while he thought he also had the power to stop the Franklin Dam in 1982 (albeit through a new piece of legislation) he chose on that ocasion to bow to ‘state’s rights’ and not confront a strong Liberal state government – part of helping Hawke into power in my view, although not the only reason.
On fires Bob Brown recently said “The areas that had been burnt would recover quickly and remain an important habitat for key species”
What is the environmental impact of this statement?
The Complete Book of Australian Birds (Readers Digest) wrt wedge-tailed eagles notes that:-
“Nearly all prey is taken on open ground and the eagles usually feed there”.
How much open ground is there in an unlogged Tasmanian forest?
I hope other readers realise that we get some very light weight contributions on serious blog issues at times. Yesterday the fires in Gippsland blanketed Canberra with a thick layer of smoke that also reached Sydney. Today I might write to some government again about how we have all lost the plot but it’s almost too depressing.
To put a fresh perspective on my personal gloom I suddenly realised yesterday after a brief encounter with a bright young TV host (ABC Collectors) in the foyer at National Museum that my father was possibly the last man on earth to watch the Thylacine alive in the wild. Only he an one other could correctly relate to its NATURAL movements in my lifetime. Their stuffed specimen at ANM was a pathetic thing. I can say much of what you read in books or on the www about environments, creature habits and extinctions is light weight.
I note too no one here it seems is bothered about the current plight of the devil or the platypus in Tasmania.
To build a better framework around my gloom I can sadly say the Wedgetail eagle in my father’s boyhood region during my working period there (1970’s-80’s) was also a rare sighting. Quoting the frequency of rare sightings as creatures slide into oblivion is hardly a guide to our success.
Although I can recommend the Reader’s Digest Complete Book of Australian Birds (any of their editions) as a great guide to identification, knowing something about local contributors helps. Each species description becomes a composite.
I met the retiring gentleman who did a lot of bird photography for Tasmania and questioned his methods of capturing say the sea eagles on their nest near his place by our beach shack. He showed me a folding metal tower in the back of his Morris Minor. Dad and I both reckoned the eagle nest was 80 feet up and hanging out on a limb directly above the main road in to the holiday area.
Please refrain from another google before your next reply.
Thanks
Gavin Bugg
Despite Andrew’s support for this ruling, I am at a loss to understand detail of the judge’s reasons for his ruling, the more I read of the case the worse it gets.
According to the evidence of the Court appointed expert on the Wedge tailed Eagle, the pre European level of Wedge tailed eagles was likely to be about 530 pairs, plus un-attached adults and juveniles.
Prior to the Tasmanian RFA process, the scientific literature reported about only 138 pairs in 1991.
The evidence before the court and accepted by the Judge was that there were now 457 pairs. Increasing from 26% of pre European population prior to the signing of the NFPS to today’s 86% of 1750 breeding population.
On the surface this seems a remarkable achievement on the recovery of the species, it shows a current population of up to 1500 eagles when considering unattached adults and juveniles.
It is all the more remarkable that the same court appointed expert gave evidence, again accepted by the judge that over and above natural death rates, he estimates about 30 eagles are killed by collision with wires and fences per year, about 50 by collision with vehicles, another 1 by collision with wind turbines, about 32 by electrocution, about 40 are poisoned and another 20 shot. This totals to about 173 killed prematurely per year, an amount that has increased by about 18% in 15-20 years;
Eg since the RFA was signed in 1997 about 1700 birds killed by non natural causes. Note not one eagle killed by forestry in this figure.
Eg numbers have been going up despite non forestry related human deaths.
However the court did not put this successful recovery down to CAR reserves and management prescriptions, despite hearing evidence of the success of the pre harvest nest survey and the massive amount of money spent on searching for eagles and evidence on how the forest practice code protected eagle nests and minimised disturbance.
Instead the judge preferred to use a model that predicted a 99% chance of extinction if a theoretical worst case scenario was spreadsheeted.
Even stranger despite accepting all evidence tendered by the Court appointed expert, the judge refused to accept his advice that the harvesting operations subject to the court case would have NO significant impact, instead the court made reference to a legal precedent, Minister for Environment and Heritage v Queensland Conservation Council Inc and Another (‘Queensland Conservation Council’) (2004) 139 FCR 24 at [60] to determine significant impact because of its ‘cumulative’ or ‘potential’ impacts;
Surely the Parliament or the courts must be able to review decision of the court that appears to so riddled with mistakes and inconsistencies. Surely we don’t need to spend millions of dollars on yet another court case, sure the money would be better spent implementing management plans that provide for ecological sustainable management. Which of course is a key feature of the Tasmanian RFA, that even the Judge acknowledged.
Hi Andrew,
Thanks so much for your reply re the Traveston Dam.
Hi Gavin,
That is amazing about your father possibly seeing the last living wild Thylacine. It is also very sad.
I think there are a few of us here who are very concerned about the Tasmanian Devils and platypus in Tasmania. It shows there are things going on we have no control over as well as how fragile and precious our wildlife is. I guess they have not been brought up because there is no issue to argue about, but perhaps I am being cynical.
If only the animals could talk!!
Currently, the bush environment around the area I live in Bruthen is experiencing severe wildfire. Severe crowning fire could be heard 3 kilometres away on Saturday night.
Undoubtedly, many thousands of species will die in this holocaust, with many possibly never recovering. Included are populations of Koalas, recently relocated just to the north of the town from Raymond Island. They more than likely will all perish, as the forest they were relocated to has 40+ tons of fuel to the hectare, including many areas that haven’t been burnt in 80 years. These forests should only have 7-10 tons to the hectare and burnt every 5-7years or so.
Mr. Bartlett I don’t know if your innocently ignorant or just another politician in denial but the Green politics of the last few decades has caused administrative nightmares to evolve with regards to environmental management on this issue (wildfire).
An administrative nightmare run by politicians, lawyers and their rhetoric and semantics. Meanwhile local knowledge and experience has been locked out of ‘decision making processes’, to the detriment of ‘our’ environment.
Indeed, if the animals could talk I know what they would say to you politicians. If you like, drop into Bruthen and I’ll pass on the message.
What do you think of a Royal Commission into wildfire management Andrew?
Maybe you think there is no such things as extreme fuel loads?
Thanks Libby:
In regard to the extinct thylacine, the less I say about the poor things demise from eye witness accounts from people I knew the more it can fade into mythology but I still feel sick thinking about sighting that lifeless skin yesterday most likely collected in the name of science and wondering what happened to the other tatty skin I was once offered on the sly.
This latest eagle numbers crap from cinders bothers me too, not because of whom cinders is but because he represents the last ditch efforts of a society I know so well. My dad and our bird photographer were both simple men who had moved on from a culture of direct exploitation. Each had developed a new respect early on for our wildlife and got highly excited about regular encounters with even common species, their birds and other things.
Cinders may question my knowledge too and compare it with his mates but I also had a lot of contact with large areas of the Tasmanian “bush” in fairly recent rimes. In fact on my last job I followed the oil tanker driver in each day about dawn so he could break up the overnight ice and snow on our run up and down the most treacherous valleys. I also doorknocked and interviewed at home anybody who was somebody in the transport or logging business in our region then during my spare time.
Let’s say I became a self taught expert in dealing with self made men in big machines on the run for our forestry operations in-between too.
“Note not one eagle killed by forestry in this figure.” No trees fell on top of any eagle and killed it.. or what? Is this misrepresenting the nature of the issue?
Different issues: Attempting complete exclusion of fire is one issue which I don’t think any regular commenter at this blog supports. How, how much, when, where and what to log are different issues. Sure you could lump them all together in the I-hate-all-greenies mould but that hasn’t got us anywhere and it will continue not to get us anywhere. You manage to exclude a large group of people who otherwise could support you. That kind of single treatment view is no smarter than the dumb greenie view.
Thanks Andrew for the detailed responses.
Keep this up, Gavin, and you’ll go blind.
Good post, Cinders. The most chilling thing about the current state of environmental law is that this bunch of sedentary suburban gardeners who sit on the judges benches are free to completely ignore any and every relevant fact that is presented by an expert witness.
They have no duty to consider all relevant material presented to the court and have no obligation to even weigh up key issues when two experts present contradictory material.
These lilliputan morons who decide our destiny are actually free to choose to accept an entire testimony from an expert, including those parts that have been clearly refuted by other testimony.
Legal teams routinely pull key factual evidence because the presiding drop kick’s eyes have started to glaze over because the detail required to convey a true and fair view is beyond his barbi-world attention span. It is no joke, I have seen it first hand.
And note that the case the judge relied on was one of those cosy little in-house actions between the Qld government and the conservation council. One can just imagine what sort of vigorous debate and wide recourse to all relevant evidence would have gone into that one.
And Andrew, that wasn’t even a sidestep on your part. It was a complete cop out by someone clearly out of his depth.
Barbi, barbie, or barby Ian?
Poor old Gavin, if you don’t like the evidence call it crap. We have seen numbers disputed for Polar Bears on this blog, now I am attacked for posting numbers from evidence tendered and accepted by the Judge.
The same evidence has been submitted by the Wilderness Society as part of their case to oppose the pulp mill. They demanded the court approve the granting of this evidence to the radical greens supporting the wielagta case.
The “crap” figures that Gavin belittles are those provided by Nicholas John Mooney.
His CV is below:
CIRRICULUM VITAE: NICK MOONEY
Personal Details
Name: Nicholas John Mooney
Date of Birth: 23-12-53
Nationality: Australian
Place of Birth: Launceston, Australia
Academic Qualifications
B.Sc: University of Tasmania 1975
B.Sc.Hons: University of Tasmania 1976
Professional Employment History
Technical Officer – Wildlife Division, Tasmanian Parks and wildlife Service
(1977-1982).
w Wildlife Biologist – Nature Conservation Branch, Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife
Service (later the Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment
(1982-2004).
Tutor at TAFE (trapping and handling wiid[ife and data collection) – occasional
(1982-2000).
Lecturer at Uni of Tas (structure and function of raptors) – occasional (1985-
1990),
Consultant to Forestry Tas (management of threatened raptors) – regular
(1986-2000).
Consultant to private forestry companies (management of threatened raptors)
– regular (1987 – 2000).
Consultant to Environment Australia (threats to Javan hawk eagle) (1997).
Seconded to federal fisheries management authority (obcerver on longline
bycatch project) – occasional (1991-1995).
Workshops on raptor studies. LIPI, Equador (1990).
Iguana catcher, Venezuela (1990).
Consultant to Regional Development Association of Kangaroo Island
(management of Tamar Wal tabies, 1999).
Consultant to Local Councils (EISs and mitigating roadkitl) – regular (1985-
2004)
Consultant to Dept of Transport (mitigating impacts of road widening on
penguins and road/rail kill)- regular (1993-2004).
Consuttant to Tourism Tasmania and tourism operators (specialist wildlife tour
development, hosting journalists) – regular (1993 – 2004).
Current Work Contact
Nature Conservation Branch
Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment
GPO Box 44
Hobart 7001
Tasmania
Australia
Phn 03 62 333083,0419 901268
Fax 03 62 333477
Email Nick.Mooney@d~iwe.tas.gov.au.
Major Projects
Survey and study of peregrine falcons in Tasmania (1973-1988).
Survey of Tasmania’s islands (1983-1988).
Monitoring of pesticide levels in Tasmanian raptors (1997-1985).
Conservation of threatened Tasmanian raptors (wedge-tailed eagles, whitebellied
sea eagles, gray goshawks, masked owls) in forestry operations (1985-
2001).
Supervising the Wedge-tailed Eagle Recovery Plan project officer (1995-2001).
Training of PWS Summer Interpretive Rangers (1990-2003).
Responding to oil spills – training, planning, operational (1995-2002).
Responding to Whale Strandings – training, planning, operational (1990-2002)
Supervising the cleaning of penguin runways in the Iron Baron oil spill (1995).
Ameliorating the effects of road widening on little penguins (1996-2000).
Developing and supervising raptor rehabilitation in Tasmania (ongoing).
Developing standards for display of raptors and dasyurids (ongoing).
Development of PWS/NCB Living With Wildlife programs (ongoing)
Reducing road/rail kil Is (ongoing)
Developing specialist wildlife tourim opportunities, eg. new itineries, guiding,
guide training, Devil Restuarants, underwater, shark-proof seal viewing,
interpretive kits (ongoing).
Monitoring of reports of thylacine and organising appropriate responses
(ongoing).
Management of Tasmanian dasyurids and raptors in relation to stock predation
(ongoing).
Monitoring of reports of red fox and organising appropriate responses
(ongoing).
Tuning 1080 fox baiting procedures for ~asrnania(o ngoing).
Manageing Tasmanian Devils – stock predation, under houses, rehabilitation
(ongoing).
Designing and supervising population monitoring and management of
Tasmanian devils in relation to Devil Facial Tumour Disease (ongoing).
PUBLICATIONS
Honours Thesis
Mooney, N. J. (1976). Development of selected predatory and social
behaviours of the brown falcon, Uni of Tas.
Refereed Articles
Mooney, N. (1981). Reasons for size differences within forest hawks. Tas Bird
Report l l p p 4-1 1.
Olsen, P. Olsen J. and A. Mooney (1982) Growth and evelopment of nestling
Brown Goshawks. Emu 82
Weatherley, R., Baker-Gabb D. and N. Mooney (1985). Juvenile plumage in
the Brown Falcon. Emu 85.
Czechura, G., Debus S. and N. Mooney (1987). The collared sparrowhawk.
Aust Bird Watcher 12.
Mooney, N. and N. Brothers (1987). The peregrine falcon in Tasmania:
1,Distribution and Abundance. Aust Wild. Res 14.
Auman, T., Mooney N. and P Olsen (1987). Status of the Christrnass Is and
Norfolk Is Owls. Proc Td World Conf on BOP. (eds) Chancellor, R.. and B.
Meyburg . WWGBP.
Olsen P., Mooney N, and J. Otsen (1987). Status and Conservation of the
Norfolk is Boobook. Raptors in the modern World. (eds) Chancellor, R., and B.
Meyburg . WWGBP.
Auman, T., Mooney N. and P. Olsen (1987). The legal status of birds of prey in
Australia. Raptors in the Modern World. (eds) Chancellor, R.. and 8. Meyburg
. WWGBP..
Mooney, N. (1988). Selectionof mates and sexual dimorphism. Corella 12.
Mooney, N. and M. Holdsworth (1988). Observakions of the use of habitat by
the grey goshawk in Tasmania. Tas Bird Repod 17 pp 1-13.
Mooney, N. (1989). Cooperative hunting in the Brown falcon. Corella 13.
Olsen, P., Debus, S., Czechura, G, and N Mooney (1990). Comparative
Feeding ecology of the Zgrey Goshawk and Brown goshawk Aust Brd
Watcher.= (6) pp179-191.
Taylor, R. and N. Mooney (1991). Mortality of birds on highways. Emu 91.
Mooney, N. and M. Holdsworth (1991). The effects of disturbance on nesting
Wedge-tailed Eagles in tasrnania.. Tasforests 3 pp25-33.
Olsen, P., Hicks J. Mooney N. and D. Greenwood. (1992), Progress of the
Norfolk Is re-establishment programme. Raptor Conservation Today (eds)
Chancellor, R.. aild B. Meyburg .WWGEP..
Newgrain, K., Olsen P,, Green 8., Mooney N., Brothers R. and R. Bartos. Food
consumption of free-living raptor nestlings. Aust Raptor Sudies 1. RAOU.
Mooney, N. (1993). Diet of the masked owl in Tasmania. Aust Raptor Sudjes
I . RAOU.
Mooney, N. and N. Brothers (1993). Nest and pair fidelity of peregrine falcons
in Tasmania. Aust Raptor Sudies.1. RAOU.
Mooney, N. and R. Taylor (1996), Value of eagle nest site protection. Raptors
in a Human Landscape. RRF.
Mooney, N. (1997). Conservation of Wedge-tailed eagles in Tasmania; the
Shotgun Appraoch.. Aust Raptor studies 2. RAOU.
Mooney, N. (i997), Habitat and seasonality of nesting masked owls in
Tasmania, Aust Raptor Studies 2. RAOU.
Mooney, N. (2000). Appearance Vs Performance; Managing Endangered
Eagles in Forestry Operations. Raptors at Risk. (eds) Chancellor, R.. and 8.
Meyburg . WWGBP.
Bell, P.J, and N.J.Mooney (2OOZ).Distribution, habitat and abunance odf the
masked owl Tyto novaehollandiae in Tasmania. In (eds) Newton, I,,
Kavanagh, R., Olsen, 1. and I. Taylor Ecology and Conservation of Owls,
CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia.
Brothers, N.,Wiltshire,A., Pemberton, D., Mooney, N. and 8. Green (2003).
The feeding ecology and field energetics of the Pedra Branca skink
(Niveoscinus palfreymani). Aust Wild Res 33 pp 8 1-87.
Mooney, N. (2004). The Devils’ New Hell. Nature Australia, summer (2004/5)
pp 34-41
Bekessey, S., Fox, J., Brown, B., Rehan, T. and N. Mooney (in press).
Hawkins, C.E., Baars, C., Hesterman, H., Hocking, G., Jones, M., Lazenby, B.,
Mann, D., Mooney, N., Pemberton, D., Pyecroft, S., Restani, M. and 3.
Wiersma (submitted) Emerging Disease and Population decline f an island
endemic, the Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii. Submitted to Bioloqical
Conservation.
Technical Reports and Plans
Gaffney, R. and N. Mooney (1994). Wedge-tailed eagle recovery plan. PWS,
Tasmania.
Bell, P. and N. Mooney (1996). Conservation Status of forest owls in
Tasmania. Report to the RFA
Mooney, N. (1997). Status and Conservation of the lavan Hawk-Eagle. Tas
Parks and Wildlife Service report to Environment Australia.
Brown, W. and N.Mooney (1997). Modelling of the nesting habitat of the
wedge-tailed eagle. PWS report to the RFA.
Mooney, N. (2001) Whale Strandings Rescue Plan NCB, DPIWE
Mooney, N. (2001) Oiled Wildlife Plan NCB, DPIWE
Mooney, N. (2003) The use of 1080 in Fox Eradication in Tasmania NCB,
DPIWE
Books/Major Papers With Significant Contribution of Original Data
Cade, T, (1982). Falcons of the World. Collins press
Olsen, P. (1982). Population studies of the peregrine in Australia. Consemtion
Studies of Raptors.
Blakers, N. et al (1984) The atlas of Australian birds. Melb Uni press.
Olsen, P. and J OIsen. (1986). Population studies of the peregrine in Australia.
Peregrine Falcon Populations; their Management and Recovery.
Strahan, R. (1992) Mammals ofAustralia. Aust Museum.
Marchant, S. and P. 3. Higgins (1993) Handbook of Australjaian, New Zealand
and Antarctic Birds. Birds Australia
Olsen, P. (1996). Birds of Prey ofAustralia. NSW Uni press.
McClennan, C. (2000) Another Chance 111. Holrocks Books
Brothers, N. (2001) Islands of Tasmania. TMAG.
Woodford, I. (200 1). The secret life of wombats. The Text Pub Co.
Owen, D. and D. Pemberton (2005). The Tasmanian Devil; a unique and
threatened animal. Allen and Unwin.
Other Significant Presentations and Articles
Bird of Prey Teachers Kit (1982).
Australian Veterinarian Association Conference (Hobart 1983): Rehabilitation
of Raptors.
Australian Mammal Society (Hobart 1985): Response to a reported sightings
of a th ylacine.
Field techniques course for raptor biologists in Ecuador (1990)
International Foresters Conference (1999): Conservation of eagles in forestv
Australian Veterinarian Association Conference (Hobart 1999): Emergency
wildlife responses.
The Devil You Know Leatherwood (1992).
Australian Ecotourism Association (Hobart 1999); Involving the recalcitrant,
Twice yearty presentations to Forest practices Officers and Fauna Liason
Officer refresher/training courses (1987-2000).
Manageing Tasmanian devils under houses (Conference of Australian
Mammalagists, 2003).
Fox Eradication in Tasmania. (Conference of Australian Marnmalagists, 2003).
Regular presenter at country shows on raptors, devils and foxes.
Presenter at the 1 3In~te~rna tional Vertebrate Pest Conference, New Zealand
2005.
Other Articles
More that 200 articles in the Australasian Raptor Association News, newspapers
and magazines. Various educational pharnplets and posters (eg Eagles On The
Farm, Deadly Disease, Spirit of the Wild). Feature of over 70 newspaper, radio
and lV articles and documentaries including some definitive features on the
thylacine..
Thesis Co-supervision
Mull, C. (1988). The biring mechamnism in falcons. Monash Uni.(honours)
Price, D. (1997). Theeffectsofdisturbanceonnesting Peregrinesin Tasmania.
UTAS. (honours)
f inoder L, (1997) The toe locking mechanism in raptors. UTAS. (honours).
Thurstans, S. (1998). Modelling white-bellied sea eagle nesting habitat. UTAS.
(honours).
Wiersma, 3. (1999). The interaction of fish farms and white -bellied sea eagles
in Tasmania. UTAS. (honours).
Society Membership Affiliations
Australasian Raptor Association
World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls.
Raptor Research Foundation (Southern Hemisphere Director)
Wildlife Management Association of Australia
Wildlife Tourism Association
Work Related Activities and Qualifications
Lecturer/guide/zodiac driver for Adventure Assaciates’ tours to Antarctica (ex
Hobart 1995, 1996, 1998 and ex Argentina 1997, 2002)
Workplace 2 First Aid
Coxswains (limited) Ticket with extensive small boat handling experience
(power and sail).
Extensive 4×4 experience.
NADS skuba diving ticket and extensive snorkelling experience.
Widelytravelled.
Editor of Australasian Raptor Association News (later BooSook) (1996-2001).
Referees
‘m Dr Penny Olsen (Australasian raptor expert), Uni of Canberra, ACT.
Dr Clayton White (world falcon expert), Bringham Young Uni, Provo, Utah,
USA.
Dr Marco Restani (eagle and falcon expert), St Cloud State Uni, St Cloud,
Minnesota, USA.
Dr Brian Green (wildife energetics expert), Canberra, ACT,
.
Dr David Pernberton (dasyurid expert), Curator of Vertebrates, Tasmanian
Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, Tasmania.
Wedgetails are in such safe hands hey!
Don’t mention the devil or the platypus on their way!
I find it so very interesting: Cinders has probably gotten access to more essays than live creatures for his rebuttal of my own observations in the field. Mr Mooney has also written about the thylacine. How odd is that for evidence on forest species conservation to this blog?
After travelling thousands of km around Tasmania and driving sometimes up to 14 hrs per day on and off over summer I saw a lot of road kill and precious little of the above, eagles, devils etc moving about during the quiet times. Last visit, I noticed the black jay was missing from its usual haunts in my old forestry areas too. How about that hey
In the mid to late 1980s I made two trips to the Pacific Northwest of the USA (northern California, Oregon and Washington)to study national park and forest management. This was at the height of the controversy about the Northern Spotted Owl, a species said to be threatened with extinction by logging of old growth forests. The issue started small, became politicised, ended in the Courts and with the Congress and the President and was blown sky high by the media. Many forests were closed to timber production, and in others logging companies were required to employ specially trained staff (known as “Hooters”) whose job was to scour the forest in advance of logging and locate Spotted Owls or their nests. Wherever an owl was found, or suspected of being present, timber production was banned. Over some years this led to the closure of whole townships where the residents were dependent on the timber industry, which in turn was dependent on logs from the national forests.
The Spotted Owl issue was controversial because in essence the owl protection program arose from Court proceedings i.e., lawyers arguing amongst themselves and judges making decisions. There was no agreed position amonst wildlife experts, who to some extent were caught on the hop, suddenly finding themselves expected to make definitive pronouncements about owl biology, habitat and feeding requirements without solid research support. Moreover, many of the foresters I spoke to told me that the Spotted Owl was as likely to be found in regrowth as in old growth forests. This view was unpopular with the environmentalists because it undercut their main objective (preserving old growth forest) and was uninteresting to jounalists because it was too boring. It was thus rarely heard.
Fifteen or so years later, the Spotted Owl controversy has passed quietly into history. It is indeed now widely recognised that the owl lives very happily in regrowth forests and was never really endangered by old growth logging operations which ensured a mosaic of retained forest plus regeneration of cutover areas.
I concluded that there was a need to modify forestry practices in the national forests of the Pacific Northwest at that time, in particular the approach to planning, silviculture and regeneration. I found forestry in the USA was less sophisticated than in Western Australia at that time, where we had already developed a comprehensive system of multiple use management, incorporating wildlife and endangered species management and the designation of areas never to be logged. I was especially sorry to observe the situation on private land, where cutover forests were often not regenerated but converted into real estate. These were very ugly operations, and ended up with enclaves of expensive houses within heavy forests in steep country – a fire trap par excellence.
I found that these issues were recognised by the American forestry profession and that they were trying to do something about it. Unfortunately, the Spotted Owl affair made this difficult, because it had so polarised the community that any new approach to forestry was considered suspect and would immediately become the subject of bitter debate or another law suit. The system became paralysed for many years.
The Spotted Owl affair was basically a fabricated environmental disaster. In the end the law, politics and the media combined to introduce un-necessary legislation with significant social impact. From the environmentalist’s point of view it was an outstanding success. They got what they wanted (closure of the timber industry in many national forests) and then simply moved on, with no need to justify anything. They also claim today that this was a good excercise in the precautionary principle – “so the bird was not actually threatened but we still made sure”. This rationale can, of course be applied to absolutely everything, and what I have noticed about the application of the PP by environmentalists is that they are very selective. They also overlook the fact that step taken in the name of precaution can become the law of the land, and it is then difficult, if not impossible to turn back the clock.
So a piece of paper is supposed to protect species.
Considering, the entire total area burnt in Victoria so far, millions of species have so far died!! Entire catchments are being gutted, including the riparian zones, where many species will be sheltering at this time of drought.
So much for the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act introduced in 1988. What this Act pretended to protect, did nothing more than create red tape that ‘throws spanners in the works’ and I assume this EPBC will do the same.
This Act (FFG Act) was introduced by Joan Kirner on behalf of the greens who helped her win office. It’s a sad joke and those that administer it are ultimately unaccountable. All we get is spin on spin, side stepping and when undesirable attention is on them, they jump in their bunkers.
Why has Bob Brown or any Greens for that matter, said nothing of the demise of native flora and fauna in these fires?
Remember, millions have died, in one event. This is truly catastrophic.
Ian Mott, good on you matey for your sound replies.
As a footnote, I noticed recently in a ‘workshop’ paper from the Australian Alps National Parks titled Fire Biodiversity in the Australian Alps National Parks, Workshop Proceedings, Albury NSW 2005, re post fire (2003) recovery, the participants suggested as part of the ‘public education’ process, that the “D” words, destructive, destroyed, decimated and disaster not be used, in favor of the “R” words, robust and resilient.
I find this astonishing as these people and their followers have for well over 3 decades banged on about fragile and pristine environments at every opportunity. And it is this perception, of pristine and fragile, that has ‘thrown spanners in the works’.
Now, after a catastrophic event occurs where they may be directly responsible, they are resilient and robust environments. Quite the opposite. Incredible stuff.
So how can anybody believe any of this environmental spin coming out of the Green movement and their comrades in government?
Roger, interesting you mention the Spotted Owls. They are using the Sooty Owls here in Victoria in the same manner. They are making it up as they go along.
This bird exists over extensive areas of the mountains but of course due to its nature is highly illusive and hard to find. This illusiveness is what has enabled the spin doctors to have it classified as endangered, knowing very well the public would never know any better.
Consequently, this birds ‘endangered’ status has contributed to Special Protection Zones being placed around the town of Bruthen. High restrictions on human activity are now following, right down to firewood collection. This is despite the fact, that much of the forest is open woodland forest types or derivatives of which are, in many areas, chocker block with fuel. Many areas are a tangled mess of melaleuca, dogwood and wattles. The wattles in many areas are large and rotten, into their third generation of growth, since the last fires.
Last Saturday and Sunday, intense wildfire hit these Special Protection Zones. As I mentioned in my last post, they were around three k’s from my place, blowing in our direction and we could hear them rumbling for hour on end, from where we stood. A south wind change took the fire north before the entire area caught alight.
On Wednesday, Thursday and with a much wider front this fire will come back and quite probably burn all of these Special Protection Zones, burning it and the Sooty Owls to the ground. Special Protection my arse.
Meanwhile these idiots and their little network are going around spruiking that it’s all natural or that it’s all the fault of global warming. The excessive, often frightening levels of fuel in the forest seems to just slip by their radar.
Roger, can you tell me why such species misrepresentations (if true), do not seem to carry legal consequences? These people don’t even lose their jobs, in fact, they get promotions instead. It’s sick, when you consider the real life consequences and extensive affects of these feral wildfires.
Interestingly, when a participant of this little owl network came to my place for a (unrelated) community meeting, a Sooty Owl seemed to have followed him and landed on our front fence. He seemed quite disturbed by this at the time. Stunned into silence. Hmmmm. Some of them have strong ambitions with eco-tourism ventures in the area. Hmmm. Owls are quite easy to ‘call up’ and not to difficult to train. Hmmm. Is there more to this than meets the eye?
Poor old Gavin, completely exposed on his claim that Wedge tail eagle numbers that showed recovery were not “crap’ as he claimed, but that they shows that the forest practice code and RFA are working.
Just to restate
Estimate of the pre European level of Wedge tailed eagles was likely to be about 530 pairs, plus un-attached adults and juveniles.
Prior to the Tasmanian RFA process, about only 138 pairs in 1991.
Today there were now 457 pairs shows a current population of up to 1500 eagles when considering unattached adults and juveniles.
As he reels from that shock we now find that the Richard Flanagan, a creative writer for all thing green, has already published his claim to have seen the last Tassie tiger in the Wild. Flanagan on the September 12, 2004 in the New York Times states:
“I take the long way, through Hellyer Gorge, where in 1966, as I lay asleep on my mother’s lap in our family car, my father slammed to a halt to avoid a Tasmanian tiger, now extinct.”
It also seems that from a quick read of today’s Mercury, Mr Mooney is off to America to meet Warner Bros. the copyright owners of the Tassie Devil cartoon character to seek funding to pay for research into the facial disease afflicting the devil. Perhaps Gavin should do some reading to get up to speed on recent events. Again, totally discrediting his claim that Tasmania is doing nothing for its native fauna and flora.
I am also fascinated by La Pantera Rosa assertion that our Wedge Tailed eagle is so slow or so dumb that trees felled in forestry operations fall on them. Surely this is looking through rose colored glasses rather than the real world!
I didn’t make such an assertion cinders. When you say “Note not one eagle killed by forestry in this figure” what do you mean (are there any claims of an eagle being killed by forestry)?
Only 73 more pairs to make til we can relax. 100 to be on the safe side.
Sorry I must have misinterpretated ‘No trees fell on top of any eagle and killed it.. or what?’ by La Pantera Rosa.
The issue decided by the court case was that forestry operations planned to be undertaken in Wielangta forest threatened the survival of the eagle. This threat was despite the massive 45% reservation of the forest and the management precritpions in place by both the State of Tasmania and Forestry Tasmania.
The evidence I posted from the court appointed expert in my opinion shows that not one eagle has been killed by forestry operations undertaken in anccordance with the RFA. Surely for forestry to be found guilty at least one eagle should have been killed!
Perhaps we could look up how many beetles were killed in order to gather evidence for this court case.
So how do we know what are the pre-European population of eagles are?
And the rate of increase since 1991 seems most remarkable. How are the populations sampled for numbers? How accurate is the methodology?
And what has changed between 1991 and the present, to effect such an increase?
Whilst Stupid Greenie’s questions should be asked of the scientific expert that delivered the figuresin the Court case. One would assume that as the judge accepted this as evidence, the Judge would have satisfied himself with the answers. Despite accepting the figures the Judge chose to conclude that forestry in Wielangta would have a significant adverse impact on the Wedge Tailed Eagle.
Thus the question that needs answering is whether Judge’s conclusion is faulty!
On how dumb is a wedgetail?: One magnificent large bird attacked the windscreen of my kingswood as I speed up to some fresh road kill it must have spotted simultaneously from above late one dismal arvo (somewhere near Waratah but a long way before Hellyer Gorge in 1986).
The low numbers Cinders quotes for any time around that period may be appropriate however he has no idea of their earlier populations from either studies or even direct observations from casual observers like my folks.
Without needing a 2nd hand reference I say the eagle’s range in the NW Tasmania was restricted way back by heavy culling around the back blocks, shooters, cars, traps, 1080 whatever. We saw them flying occasionally over districts like Takone and West Calder. My acquaintances also often found them after dead or trapped rabbits. Beyond the rabbit plague they probably starved. I suspect increased road kill and fewer devils helps in more recent times.
Cinders: you can challenge my memory with essays any time you like but the last known range of the thylacine was not my favourite place; Hellyer Gorge. In the early 1930’s it was only established over an arc between the Pieman River and Sandy Cape with a few odd sightings towards the Arthur River mouth. In the early 1950’s my uncle led an extensive bush search around the Temma Balfour region looking for uranium with out sightings.
Later there was an extensive manhunt for a lone trapper lost beyond the then APPM forest areas, that sometimes swampy region from Lake Kara to what is now the Companion Reservoir. A search team found the poor bloke badly frost bitten weeks after they were first alerted.
Why mention it? Months later a schoolmate and I got lost in there too following old search tracks while trout fishing way up the Emu. We saw and heard no wildlife anywhere that day. Tasmanian wildlife is most unlikely to pop up in front of you in daylight because of keen eyed eagles.
Readers without the aid of a 1/100,000 (Hellyer) topographic map first published much later can’t appreciate the significance of my quiet time in the then uninhabited region so close to the headwaters of numerous rivers, gorges and mountains.
Tasmanian wildlife is most unlikely to pop up in front of you in broad daylight because of keen eyed eagles. Any yarns to the contrary are pure B/S or indicate the absence of eagles, devils and thylacine.
Day sightings of big flesh eating marsupials are limited to tourists who find them flattened on the highway. Now go read some more story books.
Well judges do and say all sorts of things. But I’m uninformed how good any of these population data are.
Gavin,
My experiences in Tasmania are very different to yours. As a forestry student working for North Forests Products, as it was back in the early 1990’s, I walked over much of the forested areas in northern and north west Tassy. We saw many wedge tailed eagles during the course of our inventory, alas though we did not find a nest.
We also saw much wildlife in old growth forest, regenerated forest, on farms and almost anywhere we walked.
When driving we mostly saw road kill. Admittedly we weren’t driving at dawn or dusk very often. All of ur work was carried out during daylight hours regardless of the weather.
I would have to say that the further we were away from main roads and major access tracks the greater the liklihood of seing wildlife. As is usual with these things at first we were just noticing the generalist species, then as we became uccustomed to the bush we began to see less common species. Sure we didn’t see nocturnal types but there is a hell of a lot that is about during the day.
As with forests in Western Australia and NSW that I have worked in, one can always see more when away from popular roads and tracks.
As for the weilangta judgement, there is much legislation that is written with a particular intent that later on is interpreted in other ways. What is unfortunate is that legal requirements under our system are concerned with so called “facts” that can be viewed in black and white. Unfortunatley as anyone who works with wildlife can tell you it is just a very large grey pallette out there, what holds true inone area will not hold water in another. Hence the legislative quagmire that we as a society must deal with.
I find that it generally comes down to whether the world is viewed as ” glass half full” or “glass half empty”.
“Although I can recommend the Reader’s Digest Complete Book of Australian Birds (any of their editions) as a great guide to identification, knowing something about local contributors helps. Each species description becomes a composite.
Please refrain from another google before your next reply”.
Gavin,
1. I got it from the book
2. If you’ve watched wedgetails around ground level, they weren’t the source of inspiration of the Harrier jump jet. They need a flight path, and if suprised even in what passes for thick timber cover here can get hung up.
3. There must have been a hell of a lot of 1080 around to affect wedgetails – LD human 2.0 mg/kg bodyweight, hawk 10.0 mg/kg.
4. Also WRT one of your postings on another thread, among other things I can build a wheel, one of the things one has to do in regions where you learn that just-in-time supply only works when things arrive just in time.
Hi Peter: How could you tell how many different eagles you had sighted in a given area with out finding their roost?
Ahhh you say: we counted the odd feathers in their wing tips from below. But you haven’t mentioned their tail. Now I could say you probably saw the more common swamp harrier in the right season flying high up near the farms. Checkmate!
On a more serious note I saw many flocks of black jays er currawongs and green parrots through the old semi cleared gaps in the forests at Oohna & Parrawe back in the 1950’s (major plantation areas today). Unless you saw the same forest pests in such numbers there in the 90’s I reckon they are almost gone too. My bird world is not viewed as ” glass half full” or “glass half empty”
Back to game: The larger wallabies and one or two others were almost as quiet as me watching the streams because our native hens always gave the game away.
Ian Beale: To be quite truthful, I can’t recall which poison I saw laid out round the fenceless forest edge at say West Takone during the late 40’s but it was put down in a long ploughed furrow by the sled load using chopped up carrots or apples as bait. It could have been pure strychnine back then but it sure rotted gut. The trapper I was with was horrified.
Hey Ian you can appreciate why some poor farmers had sleds before someone made the grey Fergie out of a Vanguard over in the UK!
Unbelievable – this discussion started out with legitimate questions being raised and issues addressed, and rapidly became the kind of p***ing contest typical of a mob of idiots, complete with the virtual SPAM of cutting and pasting someone’s CV to triple the length of the page because pasting a link wouldn’t have sufficed to make the point. As for somebody referring to “this EPBC” thing, are you serious? It’s the major federal piece of environmental legislation, and even if it is rarely used to good ends by the Minister responsible, to refer to it in such a manner is tantamount to saying “I really don’t know what I’m doing here.
Nice anecdote about Spotted Owls and holidays in America, but anyone who has spent time in Gippsland knows what amazing creatures these are, how reclusive they are, and that they need a large undisturbed habitat. One reason that Justice Marshall accepted the input of independent experts introduced by Bob Brown over those speaking in favour of FT is that a number of emails and conversations were produced for the court in which the experts sent their opinions to the administration of FT for editing before they were submitted.
And you don’t need to produce an eagle that’s been crushed by a tree to show “environmental impact”. Face it, if every time you settled down with your partner with a plan to make a family, a bulldozer came crashing through a wall or napalm was dropped on your house, your success rate would drop pretty quickly. Moreso if you’re sensitive to disturbance, crushed eggs don’t leave bones, and you need a 1 kilometre line of sight zone of non-disturbance.
And anybody who thinks that they can say that the last three decades of politics has been green and not be considered a fool by the majority of people who have been paying attention is a fool. This furphy about forest protection causing bushfires and adequate reserves protecting habitat is of the same ilk. Not only has logging in and around catchments gone on, and destroyed the water table, and impaired the ability of remaining forest to regenerate, let alone stay damp and provide a natural fire buffer – areas next to catchments that haven’t been logged are contaminated by blackberry which are moved around the forest in the treads and of dozers. Animals seeking to escape the fire by heading to water get blocked and tangled metres short of safety by 3 inch thorns and vines. All this bogus environmentalism and second rate effort to spin the facts and cause a tear to be shed in the name of clearfells is just disgustingly ignorant.
You’re the same mob who say that Greenies cost jobs, and most likely that immigrants cost jobs. Simple fact – when a logging boss buys a machine that does the work of 4 people, and then fires 4 people, what cost them their job? Greenies, or Greed. Speaking with loggers in Victoria, some of them fourth and fifth generation, they all say that they’ll be out of the game by about 2012, maybe 2015, and that their kids are going to do something different. And it’s not because of Greenies, and endangered species, and reserve systems. It’s because the people running forestry have buggered the joint. End of story.
And I think it was very cool that Andrew Bartlett checked in with his views and took the time to consider and respond to comments, and I’m glad some people have tried to keep to facts and reason in the face of overwhelming blancmange.
It is interesting to reflect on the fact that the largest single eagle mortality event, ever, was probably the mass starvation their unnaturally expanded population suffered when myxomitosis decimated the rabbit population.
There is not the slightest doubt that all the eagle populations had undergone major expansion during the rabbit plague. So there is just as much certainty that this population also declined, most likely to well below original levels, when the rabbits were wiped out.
The fact that they are now victim to roadkill etc is strong evidence of a substantial recovery. Start worrying when they are no longer subject to roadkill because that is the best indicator of decline.
And by the way, Cinders or anyone else, what was the actual area in hectares involved in this recent case? Lets take a look at the actual relevance of the harvest in relation to the total forest area of Tasmania.
Carbon Sync, I would rate your last post as 4 for casuist bollocks, 1 for content. You would know absolute jack $hit about forest regeneration and even less about sustainable management.
For the record, the best ways to get rid of weeds that block access to riparian areas is (a) selective harvesting and (b) controlled cold burning. Neither of which is part of the NPWS repetoire. And that, of course, is why more of these weeds are found in the parks and reserves than in the timber reserves.
And your little anecdote about the email traffic between experts and Forestry Tas is a joke. Do you expect us to believe that Brown didn’t review all the evidence presented by his side? Give us a break, Brown was the client, Forestry Tas was the client, both parties, in every legal action, are expected to review their own evidence, you bombed out bozo.
I don’t know if it was Gladstone or Disraeli who offered the following advice that you should also heed.
“you have sat too long there for any good that you have done. Enough now, and be done with you. For the love of God man, go!
You are giving us all a bad case of bimbophobia.
Stuart hwy, nullabor road, silver city highway, gt western highway, tanami track, anywhere two roadtrains can pass…all these highways are new habitat for the wedgie, right across the vastness of ( southernish ) oz. The population of wedgies in some pissant soggy postage stamp down there in the draft( tas ) hardly counts. Theres zillions of ’em, and if you dont slow down you’ll hit them too, while they are eating the roadkill roos. I’ve even hit wedgies that were eatin wedgies! But too many is as bad as not enough i guess. Our fault again. Cause for misanthropic woe. ( And there are less in the stezlecki than there used to be….virus got the rabbits first. ) Rough place this world.
Phil Sawyer
Yesterday, the Wilderness Society claimed the Federal Court injunction restraining Forestry Tasmania’s present and proposed operations in the Wielangta State Forest raised questions about the legality of the resumption of logging in Tasmania’s Upper Florentine Valley in south-west Tasmania. The coupe allegedly contains threatened and rare species, including wedge-tailed eagles and grey goshawks.
Carbon Sync,
When you grow up, you like many people, are going to be kicking yourself for taking up the green mantra.
You say you have spent a lot of time in Gippsland and suggest you are familiar with owl species. I think you are full of it.
The owls will definitely inhabit/frequent/hunt in areas that have been previously disturbed.
They frequent farms around my town at night and are roosting/nesting in fringe forests that have been logged (past and recent) and historically gold mined.
These fringe forests are now, in many cases, exploding into flame due to heavy fuel loads. How does that disturbance compare to logging? Areas that have been recently logged are providing some refuge for fauna.
Where have you seen blackberries with 3 inch thorns? Must be a species only known to you. You don’t exaggerate do you?
You say owls are an amazing creature. Aren’t most creatures, including humans, amazing in their own right? Or do you like to discriminate?
Why don’t you inform us all what your ‘experience’ is in Gippsland, where, when and how much. Let’s compare experiences here for the whole world to see, gully by gully, creeks, rivers, spurs and ridges. Whatever. I don’t want to blow my trumpet just expose your ignorance, for I have vast experience in much of this area. Not all but a fair chunk of it.
Carbon Sync. EPBC, FFG, ESA, NPA, ABC. Whatever. Many forests are burning to the ground. What we needed was a Fuel Reduction Act.
The Greens fiddled while Gippsland burned.
While doing a chainsaw course in the Tallaganda State forest (RFS Fire-line tree-felling) some years back, we noticed what looked like black furry worms and asked the locals what they were.
Apparently they were the tails of sugar gliders!
What happened was that habitat trees were left in the middle of a coup for the glider’s.
When the gliders had to traverse the open space to feed, powerful owls would have a better opportunity to catch and eat the glider.
The harvesting policies to protect species was benefiting powerful owls at the detriment of the gliders.
Unintended consequences.
This particular coup was being harvested for the third time in three generations by the same family of tree fellers.
Tree’s kept growing back!
Back to the EPBC Act. Whenthe EPBC Act was first put together it was an amalgamation of 5 seperate pieces of environmental legislation. The result was an absolute basket case. If anybody has ever had the misfortune to have to use that Act they would understand what I mean. The revised Act is a marked improvement. However it is still one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to emerge. I say this from the point of view of clarity, conciseness, and ability to achieve the stated outcomes, as opposed to what the legislation is trying to achieve. Written by public servants to a timeline and budget, no fault of their’s, but what else can we expect?
That the law has interpreted a part of the Act in the manner that it has is not surprising. Legal decisions made by Judges who may not have a sound background in environmental issues have caused controversy in the past and no doubt will do so again. Unfortunatley such narrow interpretations of a narrow section of a voluminous Act appear par for the course when subject to our legal system.
Stewie and Cinders, you are dead right, the current bushfires will have far greater environmetnal consequences for threatened and endangered species than any harvesting operation.
I read my kids “Postcards from the town that was” last night. Perhaps it should have been tendered as evidence in the Weilangta case, evidence of its past history of logging, of the township that existed in the forest, of the raiilway and tracks that criscrossed the forest, of the bushfires that destroyed the town, the mills and the comunities that once lived there.
It sems to me that nature is a pretty resilient beast, it recovers from logging, from fires and from other perturbations. What comes back and how long it takes will depend on the timing and severity of the disturbance. Unfortunately, too many in our society fail to understand this, or as is often the case with green politics, twist it around to suit some other agenda.
Wielangta coupe WT017E involves harvesting 47ha of native eucalypt forest and there is no known eagle nest. Forestry operations in this coupes are well advanced.
Coupe WTO19D involves 68 ha of harvesting, not yet started.
Therefore, the area of these coupes’ 115 ha represents about 0.000043% of that important hunting habitat of 2,698,360 ha for the Wedge Tailed Eagle. (area from Harris and Kitchener 2005). Note no nests in these coupes.
It would appear that these coupes were burnt in a bushfire that destroyed 14,667 hectares of native vegetation in Wielangta during December 2006. The fire was raging as the Judge delivered his judgment that the Tasmanian Government had failed to protect the endangered species. It must have been a real boost to the firefighters from the Tas Fire Service, Forestry Tasmania and National Parks and Wildlife Service to hear the celebrations of the greens as they stood outside the Federal court as Wielangta burned.
“Tree’s kept growing back!”
But did the gliders? Did the tree fellers alter the practice of the central habitat trees?
Libby,
Yes the tres grew back. Evidently so too did the wildlife otherwise there would have been no opportunity for Brown to launch his litigation.
Every piece of long term research into gliders (yellow belly, sugar, squirrel etc) that I have read has clearly demonstrated that YES! they do come back. In the same way that they do after wildfire, which, as Cinders has so succinctly demonstrated this morning, occurs over a far greater spatial extent than logging operations.
What I find most alarming is the common practice amongst many wildlife researchers and green activists, to call on research from patch dynamics and invert the hypothesis but not the results. For example instead of looking at a small disjunct remnant of native forest within a sea of altered/cleared land use, they turn the model around so that they are looking at a small opening within a large sea of forest.
The disturbing part is that they always fail to recognise that these are two different things completely. The former is relying on a small patch of habitat to provide a core refuge without additional habitat being available to migrate into or being beyond migratory ability or safe migratory distance. The latter is an example of a vast habitat providing the core refuge and as the forest regenerates there is additioal habitat to migrate into.
Temporal and spatial considerations must be acknowledged in any wildlife discussion.
The funny thing is that in NSW most wildlife records are provided by Forests NSW not NSW NPWS. It is Forests NSW that is doing all the research into flora and fauna. Have a look through the NSW NPWS Wildlife Atlas online. It will confirm this.
115 hectares out of a retained habitat area of 2.7 million hectares, in the absence of any evidence that Eagles will not use the coupe after harvesting, and in the light of substantial evidence that they will continue to use it, is more than adequate grounds to conclude that the Judge has a prima facie case of “apprehended bias” to answer.
In his defence the Judge may be able to establish gross negligence on his part, for his complete failure to reach a conclusion that reasonable men and women, in full possession of the facts, would be bound to reach.
But either way, there is no excuse. We need to get this kind of scum right out of the judiciary.
Stewie – actually I didn’t say I’d spent a lot of time in Gippsland. A lot of time in Gippsland might be, what, 300+ years? Like a lot of the trees that are getting turned into woodchips that are only an affordable export because of the kind of subsidies that the free market ideology promoted here claims to oppose. No, I’m not exaggerating re blackberry thorns, and invasive species don’t get into the forest because of NPWS management. One major reason is the refusal of DSE and VicForests to clean dozer treads despite EPA recommendations.
As for “aren’t we all amazing species” – who’s delusional now? How can you even claim to think that when you’re promoting napalm and industrial logging – not the romanticized father/son selective type that all the old photos and paintings are about. If you want to go gully by gully, ridge by ridge, etc. it’s no wonder that you hold the views you do regarding environmentally sensible management. Cumulative impacts of processes, bioregions which don’t coincide with council borders, bigger picture stuff that we need to develop greater understanding of but self-interested small operators resist is the problem.
Trying to use the suffering of people hit by fires for short term gain is disgusting. If the industry in 2003 had said “oh well, that’s a million less hectares we can log, we’ll have to reduce our quotas this year” perhaps the forests wouldn’t have been so stressed in 2006. Instead they waved the RFA around and said “You have to give us this, you’re going to cost our livelihoods and jobs” when the profiteers are doing that moreso than anyone.
And as for Ian Mott, you couldn’t tell a fact from an opinion even if they were labelled clearly. Read the summary before opining further on the case.
Ian,
I would be careful about calling any member of the judiciary “scum” on a public forum, whatever your personal feelings are.
From a legal perspective the internet is a form of the formal media and therefore your comments on the character of the judge are potentially slanderous. No joke.
You are, I might add, one of the people on this blog who consistently attacks, in a rather nasty way, the credentials of anyone who opposes your views.
So you might also benefit from some counselling and/or anger management therapy.
Perhaps then your frustration could be better channeled into making your arguments stronger?
A finding of Bias or gross negilence by the Judge from an interested observer appears to be answer to overturn this horrendous decision, but will that decision be made by a jury or a panel of fellow judges?
Perhaps the suggestion by the Australian Democrats, that parliament fixes it is more appropriate at least we can a chance to vote for these decision makers.
Thanks for your gratuitous advice from the bland middle ground, Russell. I don’t know about you, but I get angry when I read or hear about the gross abuse of power by the ignorant. I am actually offended by hypocrisy and cynical double standards.
I have also come to conclude that the widely held view that these issues are best dealt with in polite and measured terms serves only to maintain the veneer of respectability of the offenders. Furthermore, I have generally found that the people who have tended to provide me with their sage advice on how best to deal with such issues have also been the people who could not be relied upon when actually needed.
I’ll take my lessons from history if you don’t mind. And the one thing that kept the Afrikaaners in power for much longer than they should have was the veneer of civility that they were allowed to maintain. Ditto for every other oppressor from George III, through to Joe Stalin.
The simple facts of the matter are that this decision brings the entire parliament who wrote the EPBC Act, and the Judiciary into contempt. And these are two cohorts that are not known for their sensitivity to subtle messages.
And the first principle in communicating with scum is that the message must be put in a manner that will be understood by them.
And thank you for your suggestion of anger managment counselling, but I don’t really need it. You see, words can be tools or weapons, including the words of anger. But actual anger would only impair my aim. Besides, attaching the correct label to a green moron is one of the keenest of innocent pleasures left to a baby boomer like me.
to the last poster:
“I’ll take my lessons from history” Check out Easter Island while you’re at it. Afrikaaners and power didn’t hang tough because of civility but intimidation and systematised disparity of wealth and justice among other things. The EPBCA which you have such a problem with was crafted by the Federal Government who aren’t exactly “cohorts” with the judiciary, as you put it, because if they were they wouldn’t need to stack the odds by sticking in one of their own every time someone dies or retires. To call a judge “scum” for correctly interpreting complicated legal relations which you obviously haven’t even attempted to understand, then add “ignorant” to your list of feeble mouthing-off barely rates as “slanderous”, more like “blatantly ignorant”. You should change hands before the RSI kicks in from your other “innocent pleasure”, but maybe it’s difficult to be ambidexterous with that huge chip on your shoulder.
Perhaps management should bring out the red stick about now but I suggest leaving it all up for our public to judge while I make a personal observation. Two contributors here could make a difference in another forum. Cinders and the new bloke Peter both have the capacity to be reasonable on behalf of the TCA but what we all need is a fresh umpire beyond the RFA framework and trust me, it’s not the courts or the UN.
Peter Lezaich said in a previous thread (w/e reading) “In terms of an arbiter I doubt that a completely independant one could be found for most ecological issues”
I spend a lot of time thinking about umpires and there are parallels under our nose believe me.
As I voted for the cartoonist in “Behind the lines” at our National Museum exhibition who depicted Helen Coonan with a sly grin and a glass of red while relaxing at home in front of her old Astor or HG Palmer whatever TV it reminded me of how our democracy works best.
But we are being “had” by the pollies all the time so smile if you can, here.
Sometimes I write about bits of experience in the Capital that began when I left the bush literally. I was swept up in slogans like Ian Beal’s wheels “on time in time” etc none of which had much effect in the real world of infrastructure in general and Telstra in particular. Working with stuff blocked up in pipelines as I did was more their style too.
The policy heads kept moving the goal posts and best of all they reckoned keeping on any govt technical staff was non core biz. Very crafty government advisors thought accountability for communication engineering and many other things could best be settled outside our office.
Civil courts were mentioned but it was all very frightening for those still at the grass roots. Ask me sometime how the survivors got on.
Motty promotes rough conduct to undermine the legal system but you should see him jump on his bushlawyer soap box over legal responsibilites when green groups take the same disobedience approach he recommends for his own interests. It’s ok for him but not ok for the greenies. He has recommended something like bombing or whatever and got shushed up on this blog before. He excuses his anger as a careful strategy but fails to appreciate that if enough people revert to his strategy you’ll end up with community strife or civil war or anarchy or a state of emergency or a police state. Ergo it’s just immature frustrated venting. What acts of civil disobedience have you ACTUALLY performed Motty? How’s your plans for an independent state coming along, are they duly concerned about rule of law? Would it have proportional representation?
For Libby, The tree-fellers have no input into the decision to leave habitat trees.
This is left to the experts that supervise the harvesting process.
The concept of leaving habitat trees inside a harvested coup was probably made in an office in Sydney by a committee.
I understand that habitat boxes are now attached to trees adjacent to the harvest area, allowing alternate accommodation for those requiring hollow accommodation, but this may be for reasearch.
Being a decision made by govt and NGO bureaucracies, it will take many years before any definitive decision is made regarding the policy of leaving solitary habitat trees.
But since half of the Tallaganda State Forest was converted to Nation Park 4 to 5 years ago,there is plenty of habitat for native wildlife, as well as ferals (goats ,pigs,deer etc)
Gavin’s trip to the Australian Museum has resulted in many a contribution to this discussion. It’s a pity he didn’t pick up a fact sheet on the Wedge tailed eagle, that includes numbers shot in the early part of last century when they had were shot to protect agriculture (this shooting probably accounts for his memory of not seeing many eagles)
However even facts sheets from the Australian Museum need checking as their web site contains these gems in relation to Australia’s biodiversity:
“Many ecosystems have been lost during the past 200 years.
Some of these ecosystems include:
• 75% of rainforests and nearly 50% of all forests;
• over 60% of coastal wetlands in southern and eastern Australia;
• nearly 90% of temperate woodlands and mallee;
• more than 99% of south-eastern Australia’s temperate lowland grasslands;
• over 83% of Tasmania’s lowland grasslands and grassy woodlands;
• about 95% of brigalow scrub that originally grew in Queensland;
• over 90% of Victoria’s grasslands. “
This ‘facts’ are despite the National Vegetation Information System (NVIS) published with the National state of the Environment report that shows (table 2) for Rainforests almost 66% of 1750 coverage remains, and for tall open eucalyptus forest 87% remains. Appendix A shows 100% of Tasmania’s tussock grasslands remain!
Perhaps Gavin could point out these blatant discrepancies when next he visits the museum. (Note the Museum is not the only one to use these woefully incorrect figures, governments have used them to set policy, schools have used them to educate our kids and green groups have used them as a basis for fund raising and campaigning.)
The NVIS confirms figures created in the 2001 National Vegetation Audit.
The NVIS is available from http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/145/index.html
So Carbon Sync would have us believe that Easter Island had an RFA? And about 85% of its original vegetation was still intact like Tasmania? Its chalk and cheese, doofus.
In fact, the Easter Island excessive clearing story has the distinct stench of green myth about it. For a start, it was first proposed by anthopologists with zero expertise in forest ecology. And it meshed quite well with the prevailing simplistic drivel from the ACF et al.
This myth is heavily dependent on the assumption that trees on Easter Island did not produce seed, or seedlings that would grow to take the place of any trees cut.
The most likely causes of the loss of Easter Island forests would be drought, disease, wildfire or, most probably, all of the above.
There is also a strong possibility of introduced animals taking a liking to the soft inner core of the coconut palm like my dog did recently to chew a 35cm diameter stem off at ground level.
So there is, in fact, a lesson to be learned from Easter Island. It is the same lesson that National Sparks and Wildfires is repeatedly ignoring in forests all over Australia.
And as for Pinxie/rosa, it was she who had to be informed on this blog that forest coupes were actually regenerated, not converted to farmland after harvesting. And it was she who had to ask how one could tell the difference between regrowth and old growth trees. She had loads of “positions” on all sorts of forest issues but; (a) formed them without even retaining the concept of regeneration, and
(b) needed help to comprehend the difference between a 30cm diameter regrowth stem and a 1.5 metre diameter old growth stem.
What a classic, “how do you tell the difference between regrowth and old growth”, awesome. Maybe you should ask Justice Marshall.
And Carbon Sync still stands by his 3 inch blackberry thorns claim. Sorry, dude, the Thorn Birds was fiction, written by a suburbanite who migrated to Norfolk Island.
By the way, was the Tas fire from lightning strike or deliberately lit. I can feel a religious experience comming on. It seems the Lord moves in mysterious ways either way.
Senator Brown submitted that the interpretation of the EPBC Act and the RFA are informed by the precautionary principle, which is fundamentally enmeshed in Australia’s environmental policies from the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE).
The incendiary vulnerability of (particularly eucalyptus-dominated) reserves to feral fires, already effectively dealt with in this thread, was not considered under the precautionary principle in the deliberations of the Federal Court.
Also, the IGAE requires many other things, not just the application of the precautionary principle. Economic and environmental considerations are to be effectively integrated in decision-making processes, in order to improve community well-being and to benefit future generations.
I wonder how effectively the economic well-being of the community most affected by the injunction was considered by the Court. I have been unable to find any reference to such consideration in the judgement.
Through another equally valid IGAE principle, the Court should have been informed of intergenerational equity, which amongst other things should ensure that the health, diversity and PRODUCTIVITY (emphasis added) of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.
Crap Motty, you’re just a sore angry bear and now off into outer space & out of context with that rant. We have asked in the past how the general joe knows. Did you claim that no logged area in Aust has ever been converted to other uses or failed to regenerate? Stretch the inferences as far as you can, we’re used to it. Your absolute B&W declarations lead to questions as a kinder alternative than declaring it’s a BS generalisation tell us the exceptions to the rule. But who would expect you to grasp the subtlety when someone offers you a broom to tidy up your statements?
We’re all still waiting on your long-promised post documenting how and where animals prefer regularly logged forests (no mention of mosaics or maintaining refuges by you either). What would we expect from someone who doesn’t believe in biodiversity or understand evolution, and who hates the very cities where he made his fortune before taking up residence in Australia’s long-term epicentre for downshifting wankers? In that safe civilised haven you can promote violence from your padded armchair. Not long til a padded cell. No wonder other generally quiet rural workers have felt the urge to state very clearly that your views don’t represent them.
Greetings Neil,
An interesting aspect of Marshall’s decision, though definitely considering IGAE as you’ve said, did relate to secondary material such as Second Readings but also to the obligation to implement and enforce obligations under international agreements. These do generally suffer minimum level watering down – compromise prior to agreement at international level, weakened or semantically nimble national legislation, selective enforcement, and finally a result on the ground that doesn’t even compare to watered down state requirements. I think that Marshall’s consideration of obligations beyond national borders had at least as great an influence on his determination as his consideration of internal agreements intended to reflect those obligations.
An interesting aspect of the intergenerational equity principle is that a different interpretation is increasingly gaining favour internationally which funnily enough serves both sides of the argument if we’re going to simplify it (incorrectly) into pro-industry and pro-environment. Health, diversity and productivity is a key element, of course, but increasingly people are shifting from the notion that IGE is about great grandchildren living the same way their folks did. On the pro-industry side, the more modern mode hooks up with the upward harmonisation argument. For example, somebody might argue for continuing current practices acknowledging that it leaves future generations with a different world, but by raising the capital to adapt to that situation will preserve equity with a different balance. e.g. (extreme case, but to clarify – and also in line with a speech George Bush made about a year and a half ago) There won’t be so many trees and rivers, but money raised will enable successful development of air and water cleaning machines so the values will be different but the experience comparable. A greener take would be the increasingly promoted “forget about your grandkids being loggers, but there will be plenty of work in tourism, forest management, eco-timber, and organic farming because of the perceived sacrifices made by industry today”.
I think the second option would be easier to sort out a costing and viability study for, and certainly the idea of thinking outside the box offers a more promising way forward than the failing status quo v dr doolittle utopia haggle-dialogue which seems to dominate.
Less constructively – Ian Mott, let us know when you catch your tail because you’ve been chasing it for a while now. You proclaim that regen is as good as old growth, then offer another pubescent sledge at someone for saying they’re not sure of the difference. There are absolutely major differences on every level which fundamentally means regen is not just completely inadequate, but poison. Trees are thirstiest in their first 40 – 60 years, which happens to be the logging cycle. So trees that suck up as much water as they can for as long as they can are replaced by trees sucking up water for as long as they can etc. Mature forests develop into a coherent and complex ecosystem which not only supports and nurtures life, but captures, filters, and stores water which is directed back into catchment areas. The older these ecosystems get, the better they function as buffers against fire. Diversity of species sees eucalypts – with their potentially flammable oils – at about 15 – 30% of tree population. Not only does the dampness of the forest limit the potential for wildfire, but the separation of eucalypts by significant distances in terms of fires ability to travel seriously decreases the likelihood that one eucalypt on fire will combust another 3, 9, 20 etc.
I reckon the last tree on Easter Island ended up as a canoe paddled to greener pastures/forests by the handful of villagers who’d spoken out against the logging of the other trees by nonces like yourself. Drought, disease, wildfire, pest species – wow, all things which occur at exponential rates in poorly managed logging areas, RFA or not.
“Senator Brown submitted that the interpretation of the EPBC Act and the RFA are informed by the precautionary principle, which is fundamentally enmeshed in Australia’s environmental policies from the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE)”.
Neil said “the IGAE requires many other things, not just the application of the precautionary principle. Economic and environmental considerations are to be effectively integrated in decision-making processes, in order to improve community well-being and to benefit future generations”.
Neil : It’s my observation that none of our contributors have experience of a licensing regime such as we had in say communications where everything technical was once controlled at the federal level. I also note; economic rationalism that drove the policy making process through the 80’s is not quite dead yet. When toe cutters washed their hands of messy detail stuff they left a few smoldering bonfires behind too.
We should all be wise and step back from courts, international agreements, lawyers and academics then do some handshake deals behind the scene. Tell the pollies later on if we must but I would definitely leave that to last but that’s just my experience.
Beware of PRODUCTIVITY statements too. Life on Earth has been around for a while. Some silly entrepreneurs want to rush in and stuff it up.
Cinders: Can you like Peter said he would; tread round in the footsteps of Keith Lancaster for a moment?
We don’t need a museum to remind us of what we had when so much of it can still be there for the next generation and so on.
Keith Lancaster link
http://users.bigpond.net.au/dveltkamp/KeithLancaster/index.htm#1991-97
Gavin, an interesting link to a well travelled Tassie bushwalker, although it looks like he didn’t traverse Wielagta and follow the old sawmills and tramways of the ‘Town that disappeared.”
An important part of the Judgement reasons do relate to how we define old growth.
Most will be aware that JANIS (http://www.daff.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=D2C48F86-BA1A-11A1-A2200060B0A03289) defined it as “Old-growth forest is ecologically mature forest where the effects of disturbances are now negligible”.
The Tasmanian RFA also reflects this definition.
However the Reason for Judgment state:
“Much of the area is ‘old growth forest’, containing trees of at least 110 years of age.”
We now have a completely different and perhaps a personal definition of old growth.
As all three endangered species depend on “old growth” perhaps this is a key point of the judgment and one that should be vigously discussed. Points for discussion would include does a forest at only 110 year old have the characteristics, height, hollows, fallen logs etc that are needed for suitable habitat for these species. Alternatively if 110 yearis the defining age of old growth lets reassess how much is reserved based on this new definition, in Tasmania it would be far greater that the one million hectares already “protected”
Cinders said “An important part of the Judgment reasons do relate to how we define old growth…..As all three endangered species depend on “old growth” perhaps this is a key point of the judgment and one that should be vigously discussed”
Cinders: As your office is still shut for holidays it seems we carry on and do the nitty gritty here but since I was only after photos initially of the latest bushfire damaged hardwood coups, that can wait till whenever hey.
What this nation needs right now is some fresh leadership from the Tasmanian branch of the TCA on valuing old growth, both trees and forest for the benefit of all in the future. Other states may have much more difficulty in getting on with their governments over RFA’s and definitions in the long run.
I wrote recently on the great forest at West Calder as my prime example. The upper canopy, one of three distinct canopies contained lots of dead wood. Lightening, and wind tore away the upper bits over ages creating that bizarre look characteristic of battered forests once all over Tasmania
We must each learn to respect the old and the ugly for the survival strength it represents and how massive dead forms still protect everything even in decay. Old growth is generally not some big fat sawlog but it’s certainly about massive form everywhere. Look at Hans Heysen pictorial representation of majestic Candelbark forms in SA any time for another clue. These rugged old giants too resisted bushfire.
Bushfire after severe drought creates new problems for our inexperienced minders. Forest recovery after repetitive severe burns is a whole new situation. When everything is killed or poisoned we loose the big picture.
Thanks for your patience
Carbon Sync and Gavin, your comments on old growth are whilst welcome are incorrect.
If every bit of forest was old growth many species would be disadvantaged as not all species rely on old growth for habitat, indeed many cannot survive within it. I’ve had a quuick look around my office for the references to support my statement and just now cannot put my had on them. I’ll have them posted in the next 48 hrs (the result of a pathetic filing system).
Old growth forests (OGF) are often neither complex nor coherent. Many OGF are extremely simple in structure with few species and provide limited habitat. These of course are not wet forest types with a rich understorey. The focus on a partcular vision of old growth, tall, majestic, trees with a dense and complex understorey, is soooo value laden and does blind people to other forms of old miss out on the experience when they walk past it.
Old growth forests are not resitant to bushfire, given the right set of circumstances (drought, fuel and ignition source) and these forests will burn as has been witnessed over and over again, indeed how did they regenerate in the first place in the absence of fire?.
My question to you both is if we keep fire out of these wet sclerophyll, tassie old growth forests (now in reserves), by what means will the Eucalypt component regenerate. I challenge anyone to go down to Tassie and walk through the “icon” forests and show me the natural regeneration that has not arisen from major fires. These OGF (E.regnans, E.delegatensis, E.obliqua) have a dense understorey, the OG trees are senecent and near the end of their life, most worryingly they are not as fecund as they once were and the seed that they do produce does not germinate as when they were in their prime. OGF is waiting for GOD, OGF is heavens waiting room for want of a better analogy.
In the next 20-50 years, in the absence of a stand replacing wildfire, many of the OGF that city folk hold so dear will be declining and the habitat that they provide will be dissapearing, how will our forest managers ensure that these forest will be regenerated so that future generations can also wonder at their size and complexity.
In the absence of effective management plans that deliberately consider the regeneration of OGF there will not be any OGF for future generations to admire.
Sorry Peter but Tasmania was covered what I call oldgrowth forest, rich in giants, (eucalypts and other species) with very little understory in most places (wetter areas particularly) that had not been opened up by fire for hundreds of years. The Calder Road farms took many years to completely clear, in fact two generations up to the 1940’s.
My older uncle was a NE & central forestry area surveyor for many years and had direct access to all the state’s first aerial photography surveys. He marked out timber in those photos tree by tree with military precision. With his 3D viewer I also saw the great tracts of unexploited northern forests that we had not yet reached in places like the Arm River Road area prior to his or our Hydro roads being developed.
Another uncle opened up the Mawbanna forests. Simultaneously another drained the black wood swamps in the far North West while the rest of us pulped the best from the NW P & P Concession, mostly E, obliqua and delegatensis, but all long before your time and any proper forestry research.
I can say that because any research for our part of the world was only done at the mill in Burnie or at the Ridgley nursery. I should mention here there was precious little forestry research done on natives out side the P & P industry anywhere including Victoria up until the resource became scarce with the advent of wood chipping contracts for export.
Some of my P & P background stuff is covered here Peter but use the whole index for a bigger picture, company names like APM, ANM, APPM, Papermakers etc. Apsel & Bowater Scott (high speed tissue production with plantation softwoods) won’t be there
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/207.html
Carbon Sync, 9 for ideological diatribe, 1 for content. What a cop out on Easter Island. Isn’t it time someone your age left home instead of sponging on your mum? Or are you the new work experience guy at the ACF?
Old growth forests are dying. And when this is combined with incompetent managment it will be the green movement that gets the degraded burned out scrub it deserves.
The problem is that neither the wildlife nor the rest of the community will get the environment they deserve. And they had better hope that those of us who know how to regenerate a quality forest are still around and willing to share our knowledge.
Ian – drink the beer, use the Windex on your monitor. Judging by the last comment, you’ve got it the wrong way round and effects are kicking in. You’re basically saying that nature got it wrong.
Peter – sounds like Gavin can talk in detail re Tas, and as far as mainland old growth goes all the areas I’ve seen which haven’t been logged in the last 150 years were doing significantly better than those logged under approval of DCE/DSE/VicForests, with the prescriptions set by NSW Forests better than their southern counterparts. Mountain Ash need fire to regenerate and they’ve managed perfectly well on natural cycles, and alpine regen in Gippsland has a success rate of under 35%. So too, the assertion that OGF aren’t biodiverse and even megabiodiverse is nonsense and merits no analysis. And as for your furphy about how some species can’t survive in old growth so it’s not desirable to have it everywhere – that’s nonsense and you know it. Nobody is arguing that old growth should or could be everywhere, and again you’ve highlighted the fact that nature has a better sense of how it works than people asserting that they do.
Carbon Sync, Gavin,
You have mised the message. Our current society has a policy to exclude fire from these forests. Regardless of the current fire season, efort is made to extinguish and control these fires as never before. This is not a comment on the merits of that policy or its efficacy, just that it is in place in all States.
Wet sclerophyll OGF requires fire for regeneration. These are single aged stands, not multiple aged. As a result of natural biological processes they age and die. OGF by its nature is dying forest awaiting a regeneration event. Yes it may some hundreds of years between stand replacing fires in these forests, its why they are OGF, they haven’t been subject to a stand replacing fire in that time. In the absense of fire the eucalypt component will not regenerate.
I did not say that ALL OGF was not diverse I stated that NOT ALL OGF was diverse nor that it was necessarily composed of large trees. There are many forests in NSW that are are not the typical OGF as promoted by green activists and politicians. In the former SFNSW Morisset forestry district there were a number of examples of single aged stands of uniform composition that were no more than 15-20 m in height and no more than about 30cm in diameter, subject to minimal or no disturbance, displaying all the characteristics of OGF, and could therfore only be classified as OGF. They had a simple grassy understorey with no just a few species of widely dispersed shrub. They did not fit the grees criteria as old growth, therefore were not absorbed into the national park sytem during the RFA’s. Nonethless OGF they were and OGF they remain (in the absense of fire).
Once regenerated, OGF becomes regrowth forest (RGF)so of course it will not display the same characteristics as OGF immediately, over time it can.
My comment on some species not being able to survive in OGF stands and is well supported by the literature. I suspect that there is confusion between OGF and multiple aged forest as occur in NSW. Yes these forests have old trees within them but the majority of the stand is comprised of regrowth at multiple ages. By that mean up to 3 or 4 seperate age classes and species within each stand. These forests are indeed diverse but are they OGF. The political definition adopted in NSW often says yes. Biologically they are not, though they do contain some components of OGF.
As for the assertion that nobody is arguing that OGF should be everywhere, please refer to the NSW CRA/RFA and the criteria set down for identification of potential OGF and its reservation.
Lets face it OGF is just a political construct, imported into this country from the US. In some forest types it has biological merit, in most it has no place. However it is here and its definition has changed over and over again to suit its proponents. The pity is that like wilderness, OGF has become so politicised and its definition corupted that true OGF and true wilderness and are devalued by the politics.
“My comment on some species not being able to survive in OGF stands and is well supported by the literature.”
Hi Peter,
Could you please tell us which species?
Carbon Sync: Thanks.
Libby: I think Peter Lezaich is trying hard in this thread to make a good case for proper forestry science and normally that is good enough for me but it’s a pity I can’t introduce him to a few old timers who stood in awe long before me under a great tree in an ancient forest. However there still is an odd copy (I hope) of a once common library book called “Forest Trees of Australia” by Hall, Johnston & Chippendale that can provide a link.
My copy just fell open on Yellow Stringybark E. muellerana and there is a typical b&w photo on p 163 of a tall specimen against a background of typical forest. Although it’s a 1970 ed there are about 300 such photos dating back to the 1950’s showing various forest types and their old growth. Any public discussion on the subject should start here. On this method of recording; when a lad knew worked for AFFA, I loaned him my FM2 and I believe this process still holds today for any RFA.
Moving on, I took a symbolic photo the other day through a window at the National Museum, that I’m going to email here and there soon. My subject was the dead tree in the courtyard.
This morning there was a report on ABC radio about dying red gums and other city trees in Melbourne. If I can I will email the city keepers of arboreta etc about my new found value in concrete mulch. Perhaps I should contact the academic Dr Greg Moore too.
Organic mulch in the ACT region just dries out till it becomes a fire hazard. Forest Red gums still in the wild here have no hope.
The black and white definition of old growth forest given by Justice Marshall should cause alarm.
The Justice made much of his allegiance to the Collingwood football club and wanting to take his Collingwood Football Club waterproof jacket to Wielangta just in case it rained (see Transcript 5 Dec 05).
It would be reasonable for the public to believe that the judge was aware that Mick Malthouse, the senior coach of Collingwood, had already attracted headlines for his conservationist stance when he declared in 1998 that saving Western Australia’s old growth forests from logging was more important than his coaching job.
See http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/afl-puts-its-energy-into-greener-goals/2006/09/18/1158431644199.html
The rules of natural justice require that the decision maker must bring a fair and unprejudiced mind to the determination of the issue before him. The tests for a reasonable apprehension of bias have been established in law. It would be interesting if the Judge’s affiliation with ‘Green’ Collingwood and old growth forest activist Mick Malthouse caused this “black and white” decision to be compromised.
Libby,
Off the top of my head, and of perhaps controversial, I would suggest Leadbeaters Possum (LBP). This little beasty depends on dead stags in the final stages of decay (fire killed) for nesting, E.regnans for insects under bark (age class not really important) but it must have fire regrowth acacia as the sap is a rich food source. Lindenmeyer will probably say that I am wrong but every reading of his papers suggests that the post fire acacia regeneration is vital to the well being of LBP. Unfortunately within OGF alone this beautiful little beast will struggle to survive and given the dearth of suitable nesting that is available from the 1939 fires (most have now collapsed) LBP will continue to struggle. However if it can hang in there the current crop of fire killed trees will eventually provide suitable nesting and the post fire Acacia regen should provide a suitable food source. Hopefull there will be enough adjacent unburnt forest to provide live standing trees for foraging.
Hi Peter,
Thanks. Why do you suggest Lindenmeyer would say you are wrong? I have a few more questions, but perhaps asking them privately would be more appropriate.
Cinders said: “As the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement as amended achieves the reservation of 45% of its native forest. ”
As the Wielangta decision made clear anything that purports to be ‘protected’, things like ‘reserves’ is open to question in Tasmania.
Our Governments say they were only kidding when they inserted ‘protect’ in legislation, after all.
But really, cinders, why don’t you stop the nonsense drivel that Timber Communities Australia (‘forest’ industry lobby group) spouts and start to list areas in Tasmania that are genuinely ‘protected’ from logging, aerial pesticide drift, heavy metal contamination from mining/industry, hydro flooding, turbidity from logging, roading, tourist development, farming, gm contamination and so on.
HELLO I WORK FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES.THE INDVIDUALS I WORK WITH ARE DUODIAGNOSED WITH MILD MENTAL RETARDATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS. I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO HELP GATHER TRAINING MATERIAL TO TEACH OUR CLIENTS IN GROUP ON ANGER MANAGEMENT AND RELATIONSHIP TRAINING. WE HAVE ONE PARTICULAR TRAINING MATERIAL THAT IS CALLED BE COOL, BUT THE CIRRICULUM IS TOO DIFFICULT FOR OUR CLIENTS TO COMPREHEND.DO YOU HAVE ANY MATERIALS OR CAN YOU SUGGEST A PROVIDER I MAY USE THAT WILL BE ABLE TO MEET OUR NEEDS.
HELLO I WORK FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES.THE INDVIDUALS I WORK WITH ARE DUODIAGNOSED WITH MILD MENTAL RETARDATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS. I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO HELP GATHER TRAINING MATERIAL TO TEACH OUR CLIENTS IN GROUP ON ANGER MANAGEMENT AND RELATIONSHIP TRAINING. WE HAVE ONE PARTICULAR TRAINING MATERIAL THAT IS CALLED BE COOL, BUT THE CIRRICULUM IS TOO DIFFICULT FOR OUR CLIENTS TO COMPREHEND.DO YOU HAVE ANY MATERIALS OR CAN YOU SUGGEST A PROVIDER I MAY USE THAT WILL BE ABLE TO MEET OUR NEEDS.