... Encourage recycling of those leaflets... to ALL family members!
Sheila - this says it all!
The answer is to slow down and produce less.
This will cause less heat and pollution.
We do not actually have to produce more.
We spend too much time working and we have more than we can pleasurably consume.
What we don't have is time, political power and quality social interaction.
... I rest my case.
Hello James.. honestly, I have had a general look around the site - there are so many interesting pieces, I hardly know where to start! (Sheila Newman's too)
Perhaps, inadvertantly, the house-prices may influence population growth (am I too naive?) - well, we can only hope.
You may be interested to know, that amongst my accomplishments is the now listed fact, that I have owned 5 homes in 23 years - between the years of 1985 - 2009 and never paid over $100,000.
I've owned units and houses and now, one unconventional dwelling; on the last four homes, I made a profit, but that was never the main agenda. The agenda was NOT to live beyond my means - sustainable living.
I ought to feel sorry for the strangle-hold that fluctuating/increasing mortgage rates have on the Ordinary Australian - but I don't. Nobody would listen to me, when I would ask the 'what if?..' questions - they kept on breeding - they kept on buying those expensive houses.
...'Mortgage repayments now account for 30.8 per cent of an average first-homebuyer's income a 0.8 per centrise on the previous quarter.' ...
It used to be that banks wouldn't lend money over 25% of the borrower's income. Does anyone still remember the term 'usury'?
Does anyone know the 'real' value of a block in the burbs? ... or just its 'notional' value?
I'm sure I saw the outline of an article this evening which said Queensland ... requisitioning land, for building purposes... (off farmers? house-holders?) - it has been done, in the past, I know - for instance, to build free-ways:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/requisition: the taking of property by a public authority for a public use : the exercise of the power of eminent domain
... In anycase, my point is - land 'owner-ship' has, and is a 'notional value' - and I refuse to 'buy' it! In any sense of that word. I've chosen to purchase an unconventional dwelling, which does occupy land, but which land - I don't own. No Stamp Duty & a cheaper house (yes, under $100,000)
While many are appalled at my choice of 'dwelling' & its where-abouts - I am 'smug as a bug in a rug'. It is not - he who dies with the most toys wins' - after all. I believe that its actually 'he who dies with the least toys wins - and had lots of spare money to enjoy the new 'Gold Standard' - Time. ... Because you can't take those toys with you - The Egyptians tried...
I'm afraid that, while I had a choice in the matter of my dwelling, many in the near future will not - I make one plea here - do not be seduced into 'the market place' and be enslaved - find viable alternatives, while there are still some of those alternatives to be had.
... So, perhaps a transient 'Winnabago' society will prevail... a land of Gypsies... no, I don't have a caravan... but .. what a lovely idea!
I know this one well, lol - 'hope you don't mind my mentioning my book, here! (Thankyou, James - for buying a copy - its on the way!) Agent Provocateur... while not against children per se - is against encouraging population growth! We don't have the resources or infrastructure to cope with population growth in Australia.
Population Growth is Responsible for the following in Direct Proportions:
... Mandatory Infrastructure Required: decent, affordable homes; free, usable roads - roads which interconnect effectively!
Odds are we have another Kiwi/and or a Shooters Party member in our Terry.
I recommend Terry takes the kids to see the film
Van Diemens Land - should suit his ethics.
MES is correct that it is not the only trader of possum fur, but MES it is very prominent in its online marketing which makes it stand out. MES website portrays an image of doing a good thing for the New Zealand natural environment, which I criticise as disingenuous greenwash.
The purpose of the article is not to target any one fur trader, but to question the merits of this fur trade being marketed as an eco-sustainable solution. It is to highlight the problem of Australian possums in New Zealand - an historical problem, long dismissed by New Zealand authorities as one for the too hard basket. It is to highlight the immoral perpetuation of a fur trade in native animals (acknowledging they are not native to New Zealand, but introduced by New Zealanders). They still remain Australian native animals.
It is to challenge the trade as a disingenous attempt to promote the industrial trade as a noble worthy environmental cause promoting glamorious exclusive garments out of Australian native amimals. It is to highlight the lack of independently supported evidence that the possum fur trade is actually addressing the population of possums in NZ in an humane manner and is actually effective to any serious extent - or is it really just perpetuating the trade for profit? If the trade is effective it should have a timeline for when the possum population can be confirmed to be eliminated from both South and North Islands. It is to question the long held defeatist view of the New Zealand Department of Conservation [DOC] that the introduced possum problem in New Zealand is unsolvable, despite DOC spending $80 million a year in cruel 1080 baiting.
A quick online search reveals other traders not just based in New Zealand. MerinoSnug is an Australian trader of possum products - Australian based yet claiming to source possums from New Zealand, which sounds doubtful.
Others include:
...amongst others no doubt.
This issue is important for New Zealand ecology and for the possums themselves and warrants public debate across the Tasman. What about the introduced weasels and stoats? Are these having a more serious adverse impact on NZ native fauna?
The issue of introduced animals is one of systemic government problem avoidance. The issue of culling is also just as serious. Readers may have noted on this blog that I hold similar condemnation for Australians poaching kangaroos in Australia. I am being wholly consistent. Native animals belong in their native homes and deserve to be treated with respect.
Labelling Sean is in response to Sean's own labelling without any substantiated evidence.
The issues here are of serious national socio-ecological concern.
So present a strong sound case with supporting evidence and you are engaging. But resort to wild unsubstantiated claims and personal abuse and expect dismissal with payment in kind. Debate requires justifying claims to be treated fairly, else dish it out and cop it sweet!
Re-read the wild claims by Sean and ask if the ABC TV would report them seriously. This is a fair reasonableness test.
As for the cliche call of 'catching a tiger by the tail', I would invite mates to the Melbourne Zoo to watch someone try. Put your Wild Turkey away and engage! Before you two run away with your tails between your legs, spitting abuse, I challenge your both back to the issue.
Sean from CES claims Australia has no population problem and no ecological problem. Sean and CES growth lobbyists ought read the following about Melbourne sprawl and offer justification for their sprawl is good argument.
Suburban sprawl to solve Melbourne's housing crisis
Climate change deniers are down there with holocaust deniers and I invite them to deny climate change after reading what's happening north of the Murray to Banjo Patterson's legendary Lachlan River:
'Everything's dried up and communities begin to crack'
[Sydney Morning Herald 28-Nov-09, p.13 ]
"River flows are being cut, and many will go without, writes Josephine Tovey. FISH lie belly-up on the cracked bed of Lake Cargelligo. Like the lake it is built around, the town is drying out.
Lake Cargelligo, a settlement of 1300 in the geographical heart of NSW, was once a holiday haven for swimmers and waterskiers. Now empty shops line the street and even the post office is for sale.
On Tuesday hundreds of those who are still here gathered to listen to a travelling roadshow of water bureaucrats about what was going to be done with the little bit of water that remains in the dam upstream.
The Lachlan River, muse of Banjo Paterson and lifeblood to tens of thousands in the region, is being cut off at Condoblin, with only small flows being released below. Towns further south-west will go without.
If they did not do this, State Water staff told the meeting, the dam would be sapped by February.
The plan was met with uproar.
''Why are we expected to take the pain for the whole valley?'' one man yelled. ''You've forgotten a whole section of the river,'' a woman said through tears.
In splitting the river, the State Government has split the people of this region. It is not the first time water has been held back to conserve what is left. A similar plan involving controlled releases is in place for the Namoi River.
But since the Water Minister, Phil Costa, made a decision to restrict the river earlier this month, tempers have flared among those downstream.
Farmers with thirsty cattle want to know why people upstream in Forbes are still allowed to put sprinklers on their lawns, and why fruit farms still receive water, albeit at reduced rates.
They also want to know if this is the future of water management in a state where almost 74 per cent of the land is in drought, and hotter and drier conditions are on the way.
''If this is the Government's climate change policy,'' said Patti Bartholomew, a cattle farmer, ''then God help NSW.''
The Lachlan River winds from Wyangala Dam, through Cowra, Forbes, Condoblin and almost to the Victorian border. It is a region heavy with grain, cattle and sheep that has endured three devastating droughts in the past century.
''Just now there is a howling drought. That pretty near has starved us out,'' wrote Paterson more than 100 years ago of Boolilgal, a town at river's end.
But this is a dry like no other.
Ten years ago Wyangala Dam was at 99 per cent, a wall of water 25 storeys high licked the top of its wall. Since then the inflows have been the lowest on record, less than half of what they were during the Federation drought. The dam is now less than 5 per cent full.
As water disappears, cracked creek beds and muddy embankments are left exposed. Animals searching for water are getting bogged up to their necks.
The Herald saw a farmer crawl out on logs and sink his hands deep into the thick mud to wrench out his neighbour's sheep. Most of the people the Herald spoke to are sceptical about climate change, but according to CSIRO and other climate models, they are some of the hardest hit. ''Certainly the southern part of the Murray-Darling Basin, which includes the Lachlan, [is] looking at hotter and drier projections in the future,'' a senior research fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, Dr Jason Evans, said.
Upstream, at a meeting in Forbes on Monday, scenes were very different. There were no interjections from the floor. People stayed for tea and sandwiches. One man, who asked not to be named, said he would be voting Labor for the first time at the next state election.
Ian Smith, a cattle farmer, has bores on his property that provide him with a secure water supply. ''I can't really see they've mismanaged anything,'' he said. ''There's just been no rain.''
Bores are being sunk all along the Lachlan as towns such as Boolilgal and Oxley look to shore up their supply of water. But it is not an option for many Lake Cargelligo farmers. Some have invested heavily only to discover the water is salty and useless.
Rod Middleton and his wife Leanne live with their three sons on a cattle and grain farm.
The creek that has been their water source, a tributary of the Lachlan, is dry. The pump sits on the exposed creek bed. ''I think the worst thing about it is the mines and fruit trees still getting water and we're not,'' Mr Middleton said.
The young farmer, whose parents came to the area 30 years ago, said he would have preferred to see the river run its course, whatever the consequences. ''The fairest thing would've been to let it run till everyone's out, rather than have the top end get themselves through till next year and us being out now.''
The Australian bush is dying. Engage and help detox the colonial hangovers!
Agronomy and soil science are vital related fields of knowledge that Australia, with its typically poor and fragile natural soils, could well benefit more from, if it is not too late.
Perpetuating traditional farming and native vegetation clearing is continuing to downgrade Australia's soils, flora, fauna and ecosystems, converting marginal woodlands irreversibly into saline deserts.
Basic principles of soil science include soil physiology, soil formation processes, soil texture & structure, soil organic matter, soil chemistry, soil acidification, salinity, erosion, subsoil fertility, soil water management and soil management & conservation.
The reasons the Murray-Darling Depression bioregion has become an environmental basket case is due to colonial exploitation involving excessive deforestation, water rediversion, irrigation, and top soil mismanagement. A better understanding of the supply-water potential and drainage potential of soils is critical particularly in oils of relatively low organic matter content typical of much of inland Australia including the Murray-Darling.
We cannot afford to allow traditional farming practices to prevail. Widespread damage to Australia's soils causing acidification, salinity and erosion has underscored the viability of our remnant flora and fauna and ecosystems.
A key conflict to be resolved is the low phosphorus characteristics of Australia's native soils with which our native flora has evolved over millenia, yet the dependancy of traditional cropping on high phosphorus levels. Soil acidity is the worst environmental problem affecting Australian soils. According to the NSW Department of Primary Industries soil acidification is caused mainly by alkaline crops like lucerne being extracted from farms and excessive use of nitrogenous fertilisers (superphosphates) mainly sold to farmers in Australia by Incitec Pivot and the build up in organic matter by livestock.
A decade ago, Dr John Williams, the then Deputy Chief of CSIRO Land & Water, reported in a CSIRO media release entitled 'THE ANSWER REALLY DOES LIE IN THE SOIL' (1998):
"The greatest problem facing Australia’s soils is structural decline, leading to falling agricultural productivity. The bottom line is that it is very clear there has been significant damage to the nation’s soil resource, due mainly to farming, forestry, horticulture and other forms of development."
The next greatest threat is acidification of soils, a problem both insidious and very widespread. For this there is, as yet, no Australian farming system which can significantly slow the rate we are acidifying our soils. Land cleared of native vegetation tends to go acid at a rate of about one pH point every 35 years. In under a century some soils will become too acid for crops to grow."
"Put it all together and we see continued risk of damage to one of the world’s poorer soil resources – at the same time as there is great pressure on farmers to increase productivity."
And that was reported by Australia's leading science organisation over ten years ago. Wake up Australia!
This article started off critiquing the Citizens Electoral Council (CEC), while acknowledging it "has a lot of worthwhile ideas", concerns are raised about the CEC's "refusal to recognise the global ecological crisis and the problem of overpopulation."
So returning to these two subjects, which are very relevant now in Federal politics:
Subject 1. Overpopulation
Sean from CEC claims "there is no overpopulation problem" and that "Humankind's future is to colonise the solar system and, indeed, the wider galaxy."
Well if the current world population of 6.798 billion is beneficial to humanity and the planet, why are people starving, why is there scarcity in food, water, energy and in public services, why are so many problems stemming from human population like deforestation?
Sean seems somewhat loonier than CEC's 13th item in its 'Fighting Platform': to "Encourage "generous immigration quotas, for the same reason which the Labor Party welcomed the "new Australians" after World War II—to help build our nation." CEC seems to be stuck in a post-WWII era, while Sean is off into the distant future claiming: "Humans can, and it's our tendency to do so, by *improving* and building on the earth, on other planets and through space." and "We need to develop science and industry so that we can begin to colonise space."
Yeah sure Sean, along with Star Trek and the Daleks!
Sean is engaging in fallacious argument with irrelevant gibberish, poetic language and answering with more questions. Sean digresses into irrelevancies like "empiricism" and rhetorical questions like "Tigerquoll, why do you hate humanity so much?"
I question the relevance of Sean's penchant for finger pointing to the cause of the world's problems lying with an apparent "financial oligarchy". Sean's unsubstantiated statements like "the environmentalist mindset is a creation of the oligarchy" and "perhaps the likes of large oil, mining, pharmaceutical, banking and media companies are promoting environmentalism and sustainability because they're tools of, and intertwined with, the oligarchy" reveals a delusional paranoia. Where is this omnipresent oligarchy?
Believe it or not Sean, Australia is a participative multi-party democracy, not rule by a few. Look up the definition! Fiji is probably our closest oligarchy at present ruled by militarist Frank Bainimarama. Such blatant errors of fact and cliche thinking are not helping CEC's cause to be taken seriously and spread its influence.
Subject 2. Global Ecological Crisis
Why Sean is the world engaging in the United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009 next month if there is no global ecological crisis? Perhaps our Sean is shy about presenting any evidence to support his view. Perhaps Sean cannot explain away the sobering climate facts outlined on the website Copenhagen Conference
Perhaps Sean is happy in Sean's world - a make believe sci-fi universe where humans take over the universe like Daleks. Sean should get out more, put the Dr Who DVD's back in the cupboard, go and visit the Murray Darling, the starving millions in Africa, visit mass population in Jakarta, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Calcutta, Beijing, tune into the Copenhagen summit. Sean would do well for the debate and himself to read up on relevant and important topics like 'carrying capacity', 'global human impact on biodiversity', 'environmental management', 'management of human consumption', 'nature as an economic externality' and 'social justice'. Good meaty topics these. Much better reading than 'oligarchs'.
Perhaps Sean's world view has him 'locked up' in the 18th Century industrialisation mindset in the linen mills. I dare Sean to step into 2009 and read a bit on climate change, overpopulation, triple bottom line and about corporate sustainability:
"Corporate sustainability encompasses strategies and practices that aim to meet the needs of stakeholders today while seeking to protect, support and enhance the human and natural resources that will be needed in the future. Business and industry has a crucial role to play in helping Australia to become more sustainable and competitive. As a result, many Australian organisations and industries are responding by reducing their environmental impacts and risks through improved environmental management practices and efficient use of natural resources."
Prime Minister Rudd in a speech earlier this month said of the climate change deniers:
" They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests. Powerful enough to so far block domestic legislation in Australia, powerful enough to so far slow down the passage of legislation through the Congress of the United States. And ultimately, by limiting the ambition of national climate change commitments, they are powerful enough to threaten a deal on global climate change both in Copenhagen and beyond."
Perhaps Sean's extreme views are based on vested interests. Perhaps he is one of those who phoned Federal Liberal MPs to lobby them to support climate change deniers and reject supporting the Government ETS. These loonies are indeed powerful. Look at the schism they have caused.
Bevans that sic their dogs on to wildlife are bad enough.
With a dog named 'Rocky' one can guess the breed was not quite a Maltese or Pug. In this case, the likely bull terrier/bull mastiff cross and the Bevan seemed to have got what they deserved. Don't go swimming in the Daly River either, especially dogs!
But worse is the misreporting of the facts by the ABC and the incitement of public antagonism toward kangaroos, as if kangaroos aren't already copping the raw end of the stick from industrial poaching.
One has to question the motive of the ABC editor's wording the title of the article "Kangaroo tries to drown dog, attacks owner".
One has to also question the misleading and sensationalised opening sentence implying from the outset an unprovoked attack by a kangaroo on a man and his pet dog, which in fact is later revealed in the story being entirely the converse. Did the editor seek sensationalism?
The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance Code of Ethics - recommends journalists "report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply."
Of course kangaroos can't reply. Perhaps the ABC thought this more entertainment than news?
If anyone challenges a media organisation for breaching the code, complaining to the Judiciary Committee of the MEAA will involve a panel of five journalists hearing the complaint. A case of industry looking after its own.
As for ABC Editorial Policies, clause 11.4.7 states "violent events should never be sensationalised or presented for their own sake. A balance needs to be struck between the inherent strength of the images and proper detachment."
One for Media Watch perhaps?
Maybe I will have to re-think my own evaluation of that "Background Briefing" program, but I thought it was very good. To me it seemed that it gave both sides of the argument. I seem to recall that it did question the wisdom of increasing the population. I am certainly far from uncritical of the ABC as people may gather if they read my article "Brisbane's housing unaffordability crisis spun by ABC to promote property lobby interests" of 26 Jun 08,
This question is certainly worth pursuing. The full transcript should be avaialable here, some time after it is repeated on Tuesday night.
Anyway, here is a comment that I posted to the Background Briefing site:
Thanks for producing yet another excellent program about such a critical issue.
Given that Australia has demonstrably failed to cope with population growth in the past, why, unless our political leaders are completely stupid, are they planning to cram 13 million more into this arid, infertile land by 2050?
There can be no doubt that this will cause catastrophic declines in our living standards as well as the destruction of our natural environment. This will practically ensure the extinction of the Koala in South East Queensland, which some already fear will be gone in two years.
That our political leaders could possibly contemplate this insanity is symptomatic of something fundamentally rotten and corrupt in Australia's political system.
In order to give electors a choice to fix this, I will be standing as an Independent candidate in the forthcoming federal elections and encourage other likeminded people to also stand as candidates in other electorates.
Another comment which shows how well the Queensalnd Government 'planned' for past population growth is this:
As a resident of Chelmer in Brisbane I am horrified to learn of plans for apartments along the railway line. While it seems sensible on the surface, it can only work if nobody drives. While I walk to Chelmer station and would not consider driving to work, many see things differently or are not conveniently close to public transport. Oxley Road is now severely congested on weekends (especially Saturday) as well as on weekdays. It lasts all day on Saturday as people head in to Indooroopilly for shopping. Rapidly growing suburbs to the south feed more cars in to a road that, with Honour Avenue on the other side of the line, feeds into a the two lane Walter Taylor Bridge with a traffic mess in Indooroopilly. Numerous schools on or near Oxley Road, and more across the river compound the problem during school terms. Getting to somewhere not served by public transport is getting increasingly difficult. What is more, a less than reliable train service (late, cancelled and overcrowded trains, some with poorly functioning air conditioning and very limited parking for those not within walking distance) does not exactly encourage train use.
How can we be expected to trust the same political leaders to do any better in future than they have before? The kind of public transport system that would entice most of the residents even close to the railway lines to not buy cars would be astronomical.
It is not going to happen and our lying politicians know that, but they will do and say anything to allow the short term profits to continue to flow into the pockets of their corporate benefactors in the meantime.
James Sinnamon
Brisbane Independent for Truth,
Democracy and Economic Justice
Australian Federal Elections, 2010
Vivienne and Steve,
I share your concerns about Sean's comments (above).
Sean claims "there is no overpopulation problem, there is an undertechnologisation and de-industrialisation problem." He justifies "humans have a right to be here". Sean seizes on language to describe human sprawl and domination with a naive conception that humans should some how be considered 'advanced' for their global ruination and blind conviction to perpetuate that ruination.
May be anthropologists could argue that early Neolithic Man scattered in subsistence tribes hunter gathering could have reasonably justified their "right to be here". But then vasts flourishing forests and savannahs rich in food and biodiversity existed. Neolothic man lived more in harmony with nature, taking only what he needed to survive. History shows that this low impact relationship perpetuated through to the Middle Ages. But is was Industrialised Man that started getting greedy and taking far more than necessary and which has since destroyed nature in the process.
Perhaps parasites have a right to live, but when a parasite population becomes so pervasive, profligate, domineeering and displacing of other species, how does one morally legitimise the rights of a pathogenic species to supplant the rights of another to the point of accelerating extinction?
Gaia is the host of humanity and all living organisms. Doubters in this concept will have to rely upon NASA finding water on the moon soon or new live in far distant galaxy like they have on Star Trek and lost in Space. Humans happen to be at the Darminian top order of living things. That privilege provides oppportunities, but does not legitimise driving lesser species to extinction for some inner gratification like 'advancement'.
When a parasite grows into a pathogen, what is the value of a pathogens "right to be here"? Any species with a population of 6.798 billion and accelerating has in anyone's language evolved into a pathogen. This figure is the human population as estimated by the reputable US Census Bureau
Sean evangelises: "humans are the highest and best force for change on this planet and beyond." Such a statement comes across as meglomania seeking world domination. The Daleks from planet Skaro were a powerful race bent on universal conquest and domination, utterly without pity, compassion or remorse as well. Is this Sean's ideal? To exterminate... with each syllable individually screeched in a frantic electronic voice...?
Sean needs to get out more to experience first hand mass population. Perhaps a trip to Jakarta, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Calcutta, Beijing.
For Sean to advance the notion that continued acceleration of human population is a good thing, perhaps he should reflect on to whom is it good?
Hey, developers like the numbers - more demand for construction. Local governments like the numbers - more ratepayers. Federal governments like the numbers - more demand for goods and services which make their GDP look good and their polls.
Perhaps Sean is employed in one of these industries that has something to gain from the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia (CECA). The organisation's name seems to have a rather innocuous sounding name, perhaps deliberately, until one reads its manifesto.
The CECA's manifesto labelled the 'Summary of the Fighting Platform' in concise summary can be interpreted as follows:
1. Return to a Bretton Woods international monetary system (1944) (i.e. fixed AUD exchange rate)
2. Really cheap bank loans for farmers to do what they want (2%)
3. Bringing back strong industrial unions as they were
4. Strong civil rights for Australians
5. Reversing privatisation of public assets
6. Halting family farm foreclosures
7. Eliminating COAG's National Competition Policy to temper monopoly controls
8. Eliminating the GST
9. Reasserting government control over Australia's natural resources
10. Expanding public health delivery to all
11. Massive domestic infrastructure investment
12. Escalate the war on drugs including removal of money laundering
13. Encourage "generous immigration quotas, for the same reason which the Labor Party welcomed the "new Australians" after World War II—to help build our nation."
I think items 4,6,9,10,11,12 seem to have merit conceptually and should be publicly debated. But on this issue, but with item 13 above to suggest a return to post-WWII "generous immigration quotas" is to ignore Australia's already overstretched burdens and stresses of population on existing resources, communities, State governments and the natural environment.
Perhaps to a farmer out of Narrabri or Bulia, more immigrants may seem a notionally good thing. 'It's hard to get good labourers out 'ere'!
But on this issue, the CECA needs to get outside the farm gate and look around Australia's cities to see where the populations really congregate. Such an immigrant flood policy will only perpeatuate the aged old colonial scenario of all immigrants and imported wealth going to the big cities. Post War thinking of immigration to build farm labour is fanciful. How many of the 400,000 immigrants a year into Australia go out bush looking for work. Do the research. Stuff all!
But Sean seems to convey more extremist motives.
Outback poaching of kangaroos is no different to Canadian sealers clubbing seal pups east off Newfoundland, Labrador and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Much can be learned and applied from efforts in Canada to ban the slaughter of Harp Seals.
"Though sealers from the Magdalen Islands of Quebec killed over 19,000 seal pups in just 3 days, reaching their quota in the first phase of the seal 'hunt', the second phase of the seal hunt began more slowly in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence on April 10th. The sealers of Newfoundland and Labrador, who are fishermen most of the year, were hampered by some bad weather and discouraged by the low price offered for seal pelts - a direct result of the European Union's efforts at banning imports of all seal products. The passage of the EU ban resulted in the lowest number of seals killed since 1994.
Overall, the EU ban on seal imports will profoundly affect the seal hunt, causing financially-motivated sealers to find other ways to make a few extra dollars. We will continue to promote the boycott of Canadian seafood, to discourage even the 'die-hard' sealers from killing seals."
Go to harpseals.org
Australians slaughtering kangaroos or koalas or flying-foxes is no different to:
* New Zealanders slaughtering kiwi birds
* Chinese slaughtering pandas
* Indonesians slaughtering orangutans
* Africans slaughtering gorillas in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Gabon, Congo or Equatorial Guinea
* Namibians slaughtering cape fur seals
* Canadians slaughtering harp seals.
In Queensland, the Nature Conservation Act 1992 that suggests it is all about conserving nature "is based on principles to conserve biological diversity, ecologically sustainable use of wildlife..."
The political mindset over the Tweed is all about USING WILDLIFE, not protecting it. What's in a name... bit like North Korean calling itself the Democratic Republic of Korea.
Queenland Premier Anna Bligh is not long back from Russia trying to ramp up export sales of kangaroo meat to Russia.
[ABC Interview]
Bligh has become the number driver of Australia's wholesale immoral slaughter of kangaroos.
Time for another mutiny!
According to the Premier of Queensland's office: "The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia reports that the commercial kangaroo industry provides over 4000 jobs and contributes approximately $270 million annually to regional economies".
If the means justifies the end, surely there would be justification for crime, drugs, pornography and the sex industries! If the end is money and profits, without considering the ethics of killing our gentle native animals for a mass market, then all these industries are equally valid!
It is becoming tiresome to hear about environmental destruction for "jobs" and "economic benefits"! Interestingly, Anna Bligh wants to sell off $15b worth of public assets to support population growth, and outsource jobs and training! Her interest in "jobs" is rather dubious and thin.
Kangaroo meat for indigenous people would have been a source of protein, but the mass market for Australian consumers, pet food and exports, cannot be sustainable. Despite all the management and quotas of the fishing industries, they are collapsing due to overfishing. No wildlife "harvest" is ultimately sustainable.
"Kangaroo numbers in Australia have increased substantially since European settlement due to the development of the pastoral industry resulting in increased availability of food and watering points."
Australia has been responsible for about 40% of the world's mammal extinctions in the last 220 years. This is due to human impacts of loss of habitats, introduced species, feral animals, roads and human population growth. The historical evidence shows that kangaroos and other once "common" animals were abundant! Many are now lost forever, or suffering from threats. "Increased" food today for kangaroos is not what is being reported in today's papers! If these perfectly adapted animals are suffering, then it is no wonder that Australia's livestock industries in western Queensland are suffering. Livestock have devastated native pastures, water sources and forests. How could there be more food and water for kangaroos today?
" Aerial surveys are conducted annually to determine the kangaroo population with the harvest quota typically being set at between 10 to 20 percent of the population depending on the population density". How could aerial surveys really estimate kangaroo populations in such a wide area? This would be unfeasible and impractical. Just how could numbers be determined from the air, in all the vast areas? They could see the same mob, the next day, in a different area and think they were in multitudes!
"The Code also provides for the humane euthanising of pouch young and young at foot".
Dependent joeys can legally be bashed to death or decapitated. This is "humane"? At foot joeys can just go and die slowly, not having commercial value. Up to 40% of shots are missed, and animals can escape to die slowly and painfully. There is nothing "humane" about these killings that must terrorize these stress-prone animals.
Don't get too upset about us eating our national symbol. Had a bit of a look at other nations and here's what I found- Countrys that eat their national symbol
Bolivia, Cambodia, East Timor, Eritrea, Finland, Japan, Maldives, Nepal, Philippines, South Africa,
Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Vietnam and AUSTRALIA.
About a third of the countriess had inedible mythical creatures that weren't very tasty. The rest were dogs, eagles and birds etc.
If it was good enough for aboriginals to eat roos, It's good enough me.
Not interested in your hyperbole it's starting to wear thin.
Rudd should have a read of the UK House of Lords select committee report on the economic impacts of large scale immigration. The net benefits are marginal at best & that overcrowding/infrastructure costs can be a major problem.
Not to mention environmental costs, social cohesion problems (see social capital research by Harvard's Robert Putman) and crime.
The report is The ecomnomic impact of Immigration - Voulme I ; Report (pdf, 1.2MB).
The programme certainly tackles the important issues affecting Australia. The popularity of the programme and its broadcast reach (being the national coverage and perceived credibility of the ABC) means demand to be heard invariably exceeds time available.
To address the shortage of public airtime, Talk Back programme listeners should publicly question ABC Radio management's allocation of available airtime to issues of popular interest and talk back.
Perhaps listeners shoud be more concerned about ABC's current corporate-wide strategy to focus to take on an unprecedented expansion into multiple overseas news bureaus. This includes a service in Arabic, which has been flagged as a Rudd/Obama propaganda tool soft pitching Rudd-US policy.
Ethics, democracy and ABC budget to the wind!
Again Rudd, with his statesman head in the stratosphere of global politics, is aloof to home issues beneath him, while salivating on his new 'world leader' status to play the ABC on the world stage.
Issues of national significance should be Rudds focus such as personaly following up his hollow 'sorry' statement to indigenous Australians with financial compensation and pragmatic follow through on delivering policies to reduce the disadvantages between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.
Instead, Rudd's head space is anywhere but in Australia. What national priority warrants our national broadcaster investing millions of public money on an unjustified juggernaut into overseas expansion competing with the BBC, CNN and Al Jazera?
"Scott argues that only the ABC can deliver the benefits." [Source: Crikey]
His boss is Kevin Rudd of course! Clearly this move is a furtherance of Rudd's unchecked addiction to foreign affairs at the expense of Australian domestic affairs.
It's a sure sign Brisbane's population has reached saturation when new dams are proposed.
If a city cannot sustain its population on the existing resources it has, then it has reached population saturation.
Brisbane's metropolis now sprawls from NSW to Noosa Heads and west of Ipswich. It's population demand for water has exceeded its water supply.
Queensland Premier Bligh says "the Queensland Government will have to come up with alternative sources of drinking water if the Traveston Crossing dam in the state's south-east is not approved." [ABC 10-Nov-09]
Water is just one public utility, then there is electricity, gas, public transport, education, housing, aged care, etc. All Queensland public services are overstretched from Rudds flood gate policy on immigration with spill over effects from interstate as many thousands flee saturated Sydney and Melbourne to a bulemic Brisbane. Australia's urban population problem is snowballing, yet Rudd blindly cannot see the elephant in the room or has a hidden agenda. It has nothing to do with race and nothing to do with the refugee issue - which are being mischieviously played as political red herrings.
Traveston dam on the Mary River near Gympie will be another travesty of justice on the existing rural community way of life and ecology to feed an insatiable sprawl policy.
Garrett stands to be remembered for his watering down of Australia's environmental legislation and for species extinctions on his watch.
The population statistics have little meaning to the mainstream population when expressed as a national aggregate. A figure of 35 million or 50 million for the whole of Australia may sound small or large. This is reflected in the contradictory results of The Age/Nielson poll.
It is important to first appreciate the inherent weaknesses of statistics and of survey sampling of quantitative data.
Australia’s population size has a comparable meaning as world population being about 6.7 Billion. The mainstream will ask, so how does that impact on me? How do people evaluate whether a figure is acceptable or too large?
Well, when that figure is expressed as a relative change or is translated to the scale of the person being surveyed. For instance, If Australia’s population in November 2009 is about 22 million, then 50 million represents a doubling of the current figure. In order to objectively guage public opinion about projected population growth and immigration, the Age/Nielson poll ought to ask is: Is the doubling of Australia’s population from what it is now to what it may be in forty years time an acceptable level of population growth? This allows the respondent to a survey assess the figure relative to what they know now. It is important to be aware that population growth and immigration, while related, are different statistics.
Further, the national figure should be translated into a likely proportion on a State basis (which in Australia would in the main be the same as the Capital City of that State. For instance, NSW (or Sydney) may typically have a third the population of Australia (see ABS statistics below). So another survey question could ask: Is an increase of Sydney’s population by 13 million (1/3 of 40 million) an acceptable level of population growth?
MARCH KEY FIGURES
Population at end Mar qtr 2009
PRELIMINARY DATA '000
________________________________________
New South Wales 7 076.5
Victoria 5 402.6
Queensland 4 380.4
South Australia 1 618.2
Western Australia 2 224.3
Tasmania 501.8
Northern Territory 223.1
Australian Capital Territory 349.9
Australia(a) 21 779.1
________________________________________
(a) Includes Other Territories comprising Jervis Bay Territory, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
SOURCE: Australian Bureau of Statistics
Yes, we must question the validity of the poll – the collection, analysis and interpretation of the population data. The statistical method used by Age/Neilson should be independently peer scrutinised, to ensure best practice is followed and so the public and federal policy makers alike are not mislead with inappropriate findings. “Statistics is the science of making effective use of numerical data relating to groups of individuals or experiments. It deals with all aspects of this, including not only the collection, analysis and interpretation of such data, but also the planning of the collection of data, in terms of the design of surveys and experiments.”
[SOURCE: Wikipedia citing Dodge, Y. (2003) The Oxford Dictionary of Statistical Terms, OUP]
I question whether in this poll whether indeed effective use has been made of the numerical data.
Good reason not to vote for Liberals in Victoria
"If elected to government in November 2010, the Liberal Nationals Coalition will work with Racing Victoria to reinstate jumps racing and to rebuild racing across country Victoria".
“We want jumps racing to continue, the May Racing Carnival to continue with the economic and job flow-ons to continue to Warrnambool,” Dr Napthine said. “When Warrnambool is losing hundreds of jobs and $20 million a year in income because changes are being made by an agency established by the Victorian Government through parliament, I believe the State Government has a responsibility to work with the city to develop a strategy for economic opportunities that will create jobs and income.”
DENIS NAPTHINE, Shadow Minister for Racing, Shadow Minister for Regional Cities
Interesting that Denis Napthine was a vet before entering politics! Vets also work for the live export trade, support puppy mills and factory farming. It is tiresome to hear the same old arguments to exploit and kill animals and destroy environments - "jobs", "income" and "economics"!
Good reason to not vote for Liberals in the next Victorian elections!