The following response was sent to me today. It clarifies some confusions I had but enracinates some others. I will respond when I can and invite others to comment if they find the topic of interest.
(Letter Has been unpublished for now, due to complaint of breach of copyright. Will purse this further. - JS 9.00AM 12 Aug 09)
Organic Industry Research and Development Plan 2006-2011 [August 2006]
..by the Australian Government's Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation:
Meat
"Australia has the potential to be an international force in organic meat production. Australia has more certified organic land than any other country, the majority of which is dedicated to extensive grazing operations. Furthermore, the fact that Australia is Foot and Mouth Disease and BSE free creates a further competitive advantage. The value of organic meat and the producers involved in meat production (Figures 2.1 and 2.2) justify meats inclusion as a priority sector.
While predominantly focused on beef and lamb, there is a fair range of organic meats produced in Australia such as veal, goat, poultry and pork. The organic meat industry is set to expand rapidly. In particular, there is growing demand in the food service sector and high-end eating establishments are featuring organic beef and lamb on their menus. Expansion is also likely in poultry and pork although organic is more problematic in intensive animal industries because of greater vulnerability to disease. The supply of organic meat fluctuates more than its conventional counterpart as a result of the availability of organic feed. Much of Australia’s organic meat is sold through organic meat cooperatives to processors but matching supply and demand is a key constraint.
Jeff Borg finds it convenient to generalise by criticising those opposed to kangaroo poaching and meat production as advocating vegetarianism. It is simplistic to try to herd critics into the one yard and label them as idealistic, but it doesn't help find an optimal workable solution to Australia's livestock industry.
An optimal workable solution is one that enables Australian graziers to make a viable sustainable living, while respecting Australia's unique wildlife and respecting the integrity of the land.
A sensible approach is to look at what Australia has already got and is good at, then modify that to being sustainable and more profitable. Australia is already good at beef production for instance and there is a ready local and international market. If one looks at New South Wales, over 75% of the original natural vegetation has been cleared. So rather than destroying the remaining 25%, it would make more sense to better utilise the 75% in a more sustainable way. It makes sense to look at agricultural advances that respect the land and focus on profitable niche markets like organic beef. Check the following examples. I am sure there are others.
2. Best practice husbandry in beef cattle
3. Organic Industry Five-Year Plan 2006-2011 OBE Beef Pty Ltd
5. Export Potential for Organic Lamb
Overgrazing is not the answer. Continuing grazing business as usual unprofitably is not the answer.
Let's start with the facts. What is your source of information claiming that kangaroo numbers are twelvefold their pre-colonial population? Where are these massive populations? If they exist, what are the root causes? What impacts is shooting having on the habitat and breeding patterns of each species of kangaroo and macropod?
According to The Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) (DECC) before colonial exploitation "there were 21 species of macropod in NSW - now there are only 15. The smallest species, and those with special habitat requirements and restricted ranges, have suffered the most - both from predators and from the destruction of their habitats. A number of species of kangaroo and wallaby are listed as threatened in NSW." SOURCE
Let's not unquestioningly rely on generalisations, myths and innuendo, and shooting the messengers. Let's get the unbiased facts and then sensibly discuss viable pragmatic options that can work.
The current co-ordinating body responsible for managing kangaroo populations in New South Wales is the Kangaroo Management Advisory Panel within DECC. Discussion about the future of kangaroo shooting and meat trade should start with and include reference to this panel. The panel's role includes "licensing all facets of commercial kangaroo harvesting and non-commercial kangaroo culling", providing "advice on important matters relating to the NSW Commercial Kangaroo Harvest Management Plan 2007-11."
Member organisations of the panel include:
NSW Farmers Association
Rural Lands Protection Board State Council
NSW Department of Primary Industries
Pastoralists' Association of West Darling
Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia Inc
Australian Game Meat Producers Association
Australian Veterinary Association (NSW Division)
RSPCA
Dubbo Field Naturalists and Conservation Society Inc
Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia Inc
NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change
NSW Kangaroo Harversters' Association
Place held (an Aboriginal community organisation)
Unsurprisingly, Rupert Murdoch's Australian has twisted this story around to present the desal plant in the most favourable possible light. The story of Friday 31 Jul 09 has the heading "Victoria's $3.5bn desalination plant to defy slump" (There seems to be a second seemingly identical online version of that story here.)
The sum of the environmental case against the desal plant reported in the article is:
"The plant has been bitterly opposed by environmental groups and some residents in the area. The president of Watershed Victoria, Stephen Cannon, said it was unnecessary as the government could have recycled billions of litres of waste water that was pumped into the sea southeast of Melbourne."
Apart from downplaying the horrific environmental and social vandalism this project entails, the story also fails to acknowledge the idiocy of the efforts of the Victorian Government to run this as a Public Private Partnership, rather than building it and owning it outright for itself as attested to even by the facts reported in the article:
"The government has been forced to act as a lender of last resort if plans by AquaSure to syndicate about $2bn of the debt by bringing in superannuation funds and other investors do not succeed. Mr Brumby said the project was fully funded and he did not expect this to be required. If it was called upon, the money would be sourced by Treasury in debt markets and passed on to the consortium at market rates."
... and:
"Under the PPP model, the government can purchase blocks of 50, 75, 100, 125 or 150 billion litres a year depending on demand, although in the early years the plant is expected to be running at full capacity. The government will fund the payments to the consortium by increasing water bills by up to 100 per cent over fiveyears."
Pam , the ABC has been covering this topic frequently of late, reflecting either strong community interest, or is it really a series of desperate media releases by The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia trying to regain credibility for its poaching in the wake of Russian rejection of kangaroo meat?
Check these recent programmes and note the short media release look and feel of the ABC articles, plus the number of references to the The Kangaroo Industry Association (aka author).
Pam, the ABC on this issue seems to have allowed itself to be a media outlet for free corporate image advertising by Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia.
1. 'Kangaroo industry needs to improve standards' - 29 Jul 2009 QLD Country Hour
2. 'Kangaroo meeting to discuss crippled industry' 28 Jul 2009
6. 'Kangaroo harvesters look for other jobs' 14 Jul 2009. QLD Country Hour.
7. 'Kangaroo industry struggling' - 13 Jul 2009
8. 'Russia blames food safety for Australian kangaroo meat ban' - 9 Jul 2009
10. 'Kangaroo industry fears animal activism' - 6 Jul 2009
12. 'Commercial kangaroo animal welfare fears' - 3 Jul 2009
I think the terms 'kangaroo poaching' and 'kangaroo slaughter' ring truer than some exploitationist spin trying to legitimise wildlife slaughter as an 'industry'. One has to realise that when kangaroo poachers refer to it as a "sustainable industry" they mean 'sustainable for themselves' in terms of regular sales and profit.
The term 'sustainable' is spin for profitable exploitation of nature. It has no relevance to the impacts on nature.
To learn about the dark side of this trade visit The Kangaroo Industry Association and read their language and focus. On this home page they even borrow a quote from Dr Tim Flannery to leverage his ecological authority to legitimise their poaching. It also has propgrammes to desensitise school age children by providing "curriculum ideas and teaching resources for teachers, and interactive activities and quizzes for students."
They refer to what they do as 'kangaroo harvesting', which is spin for poaching.
The word harvest applies to crop-raising, not husbandry. Kangaroos are clearly neither crops nor farm animals, yet the harvest word has been used to try to legitimise the killing. Kangaroos are native wild animals unique to Australia and there are many different species, some threatened with extinction.
In Queensland they have set up the 'Queensland Macropod and Wild Game Harvesters Association'. So here 'wild game' has been used as a pseudonym for native wild animals.
'Kangaroo harvesters' are wildlife poachers. The fact that our federal and state governments have legalised wildlife poaching says much about the morality of our federal and state governments.
Ernysp76 in his comment above claims that the Repco Rally through Kyogle and Tweed shires will cause "no impact" to the environment. Otherwise, I can't see that the rest of the comment offers much more reading value. It is a bit rich for a car rally enthusiast to accuse others of "noise clang".
But let's test that unsupported claim:
Repco Rally Australia on its website publishes its Environment Policy Statement (still in draft form) and states "RRA recognise that all forms of human activity impact on the environment in some form." So this admittance by RRA confirms the 'no impact' claim to be false. So ENRysp76, have a read of the RRA website, then get back to us with some real facts, rather hollow puff!
On the subject of Repco Rally Australia's environmental credentials and intent, it too seems full of hollow enviro puff. The following promises in RRA's Environment Policy Statement are dated November 2008 and how far away is this rally event?
RRA enviro claim 1: "The adoption of a robust environmental management framework within the event management structure" - where? when? what are the details?
RRA enviro claim 2: (Clause 3 'Considering the effect on the environment' "RRA intends to integrate environmental considerations into the day to day operations of the event by:
• Establishing environmental management procedures that ensure environmental considerations are part of RRA’s decision making process e.g. by appointing a senior event manager with responsibility for environmental performance to oversee the establishment of an event Environmental Management Framework and an Environmental Management Group for the event.
QUESTIONS: Has a senior event manager been appointed yet having responsibility for environmental performance and if so what are its responsibilities and scope?
Has an event Environmental Management Framework yet been established and, if so, what are the aims and content of this framework?
Has an event operational Environmental Management Group been established and if so what are its responsibilities and scope?
• Identifying, assessing and managing environmental risks as part of the overall risk management process for the event When is this going to be done? Is it to be carried out by an independent and accredited environmental scientist? Where is the report?
• Ensuring that systems are in place to provide adequate resources to manage environmental risks to achieve the performance outcomes agreed by the RRA Board" Are these systems in place? What systems?
RRA enviro claim 3: (Clause 4) Aspire to zero net harm to the environment:
"Applying sound ecological principles that recognise the importance of biodiversity conservation e.g. ensure environmental risks are assessed to take into account impacts on biodiversity." What sound ecological principles has RRA come up with?
RRA enviro claim 4: (Clause 6) Help to protect biodiversity from adverse impacts arising from our activities:
• To the extent possible areas known to be of particularly high environmental value in terms of their biodiversity will be avoided. In all cases infrastructure associated with the event will be located on brownfields sites avoiding the need to clear vegetation and away from areas likely to be associated with sensitive habitats.
• Measures will be taken to forewarn animals along the course prior to competition by traversing the course with a number of low speed course vehicles. How does RRA propose to "forewarn animals along the course?" Fly helicopters low over them? Use sirens to scare them to death? How is this consistent with applying sound ecological principles?
...having said that, I support the call by Ernysp76 to stop native vegetation clearing.
I wonder if Australia's now most infamous elephant trophy hunter, Robert Borsak, took the tusks home for mounting on his wall?
Trophy hunting is immoral poaching. The only difference between poaching and trophy hunting is when a country's dictator, like Robert Mugabe, proclaims poaching legal. It harks to the 19th Century when native animals were exploited as 'game' and 'vermin'. Elephants in Africa and India were colonists 'big game', so they used an 'elephant gun' - the tool of a brave hero hunter on horseback facing a charging elephant herd in the wild. Such is the nostalgic aspiration, so our hero hunter can convey thrilling African adventure stories of stalking and killing at fire side chats then point to his proud mounted trophy on his loungeroom wall.
Borsak "killed several (in Zimbabwe), including a bull elephant he shot in the head from a distance of six paces." [Andrew Clennell, SMH 21-Jul-09]. The spoils of a 'big-game safari'. I wonder if Borsak just stepped out of the 4WD, walked up to this inherently shortsighted elephant downwind; the elephant stationary and unsure of what was going on; then Borsak shot it in the head at close range. Borsak the big game hunter! In this beautiful savannah country, home of the bush elephants, what of the elephant family this bull elephant leaves behind?
Borsak couldn't care. Brutal, corrupt Mugabe couldn't care.
The African Elephant is the largest land mammal on Earth. Poaching and human encroachment since the late 1970's has decimated the 1.3 million odd numbers to around 600,000 today. Scientists had estimated in the 1980s that had no protective measures been taken, the African bush elephant and forest elephant would be extinct in the wild by 1995.
Under the 1973 conservation agreement 'The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, (CITES) the African Elephant is partially protected against poaching and over-exploitation through international trade. But the agreements are voluntary and CITES does not protect the elephant against habitat loss, nor does it explicitly address market demand, nor does it provide for ground enforcement.
"The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has listed the African elephant as near threatened, while the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of Flora and Fauna has placed it under its Appendix I and II. CITES Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction, with trade related to these species only permitted in exceptional circumstance, while Appendix II encompasses species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled to avoid uses incompatible with their survival." 'Save the Elephants'
In Chad, the African Bush Elephant officially protected, but ground enforcement of poaching is less than effective because of limited because resources, money and manpower. In southeastern Chad in 2006, aerial surveys confirmed the poaching slaughter of over 100 elephant near Zakouma National Park, a region with decades-old history of elephant poaching. [See report by conservationist J. Michael Fay and National Geographic photographer Michael Nichols highlighting the poaching threat to this - the world's largest remaining concentration of elephants." Play the video:
'Ivory Wars, Last Stand in Zakouma'
Trophy hunting harks back to the 19th century and continues today, thanks to demands from the Borsaks of the world. According to the World Wildlife Fund on the Status of African Elephants, Absalom Shigwedha, The Namibian, July 9, 2009, "Large quantities of African ivory are still finding their way into illegal markets in Africa and beyond, in places such as Asia. 'Status of African Elephants'
Time is overdue for the international community, the UN with The African Union to establish strong and effective laws and funding to protect the African Elephant from poaching (illegal or dubiously otherwise), from ivory trade and from habitat loss.
A very well-expressed piece on how modern 'planning' is like a cancer. Infill and transit cities are the lymphatic nodes where the metastases start. And the cancer becomes its own raison d'etre, killing the organism it began in by sucking everything into the creation of tumours. "Feed me! Feed me!" cries the Property Council of Australia and its many little metastases in the Victorian parliament, the W.A. Parliament, the NSW parliament, the Queensland parliament, etc., say, "The tumour must grow! We will divert all our taxes to growing that tumour because it is big and impressive and uses all the blood and all the nutrients. If we don't feed it, it will eat us. Let us feed it immigrants and taxpayers and it will love us and spare us." And the tumour has now invaded the brain so that all we hear is that we must have growth! Growth is the politics and religion of cancer. Our ministers for planning sound like so many big talking tumours. The opposition sound like tumour wannabes, squeaking, "We'll do growth better, you'll see. Nothing like our tumours."
Help! It's like the invasion of the body-snatchers.
Is there anyone human left in parliament? Or are they all malignant developers?
Hi Sheila,
Thank you very much for your long and interesting reply. I think you have many of the elements that could help to stabilize the global population. Unfortunately, the established elites are running hell-for-leather in the opposite direction. I may reply again at some point, but for the time being I need to take time to assimilate your comments and then see if we can develop this discussion in some way (also hoping that others will take part too).
As for my stuff on Japan and Korea, as well as the chapters in The Final Energy Crisis, Pluto Press, UK, 2008, please visit:
for a menu of past papers and so on. For Japan, with food self-sufficiency at 40%, a sudden food/energy crisis would be a nightmare of horrific proportions. If world transportation of food breaks down, almost 100% of the Japanese people will 'be hungry' and 1/3 to 1/2 of the population will be in danger of starvation. The government seems to think that an average of 2020 kcal/cap/day can be provided domestically (that will keep you alive, but not 'happy'), but internal distribution is likely to be as bad as global distribution, so despite the people who tell me 'Japan isn't North Korea' I still think that what is happening in that country is a big warning sign for the Japanese. Personally, I think the conditions for avoiding this kind of disaster are the five I set out in my comment on "Surely these are the "inconvenient truths", livestock industries and population blow-out!" (#1408).
For material on the Karen, please visit:
http://tonbo80.spaces.live.com/
where you will find the novel by Francis Ferguson that you mention, a book translated from Thai (but written by a Karen) on Karen rotational swidden farming, as well as two photo albums to back these up.
The Karen in N Thailand are just about hanging on and their own efforts to keep their culture alive are growing. Things are not wonderful, but there is a little glimmer of optimism. The government is not, of course, about to allow them to return to traditional lifeways, which would include rehabilitation of their rotational swidden farming.
You mention writing. In fact they did not have an extensively used writing system until the US missionaries found them in eastern Burma and adopted the Burmese alphabet in order to translate the bible into Karen ('Skaw' Karen). Most Karens now use this writing system, but the Roman Catholics in N Thailand have a system that uses the Roman (English) alphabet. It is actually quite good and they published a very useful dictionary two years ago.
Best wishes,
Tony
Hello Ben, your comment is encouraging. May I suggest that the Bushfire CRC organisation would seem to be a good place to start towards best practice bushfire bunker solutions.
I note however that the latest report from the Bushfire CRC, 'Victorian 2009 Bushfire Research Response Interim Report (June 2009)' does not mention the word 'bunker' once, which perhaps suggests that the knowledge in this specialised sub-field is still lacking.
So, yes, this suggests a window of opportunity for your specialised organisation to discuss the requirements testing and standard setting with Bushfire CRC. It would sound like an excellent partnership and I would think that governments would be willing to support ongoing research, given the many public calls for this strategy to be seriously explored. All the best and let us know how you go.
A key driver for this Pallas Link could well be the Port of Hastings Corporation (PoHC), which plans to double its capacity.
Read this article from 16-Apr-09 extracted from the shipping publication 'Lloyd's List DCN'.
PoHC ahs for yeasr been lobbying for federal and state infrastructure spending, plus eyeing freight opportunities for:
* Vehicle trade
* Bass Strait trade
* Gippsland forests products export (logs and woodchips?)
Diana,
Thank you for highlighting this important Australian issue. If one looks at the federal agency responsible for Australia's natural environment and then each respective state agency responsible, one quickly realises the fragmented approach by our governments on wildlife research. See main list below. I am sure there are others.
A key problem is that much faunal research stops at the planning and recommendation stage.
In NSW we have many so-called 'recovery plans' for threatened species which gather dust.
Another key problem is that there is no legal compulsion for other agencies of government at all levels to consult with their respective environmental agencies on a place-based basis when it comes to development and activities that can impact on wildlife and their habitat. So these environmental agencies operate in a silo mentality, which undermines their usefulness and as you say 'efficacy'.
Federal
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (portfolio bucket)
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/index.html
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/index.html
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/funding-and-research/index.html
CSIRO
http://www.csiro.au/science/Animals.html
NSW:
Department of Environment and Climate Change
(server down...again!)
Taronga Zoo & Western Plains Zoo (Dubbo)
http://www.taronga.org.au/tcsa/conservation-programs.aspx
ACT:
Department of the Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water (bucket portfolio)
http://www.environment.act.gov.au/environment
VIC:
Department of Sustainability and Environment
DSE http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenpa.nsf/childdocs/-A59F5093F6D6511D4A2567D600824A61?open
Arthur Rylah Institute
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenari.nsf/LinkView/FC5FBA8F699F8BFBCA256DB8002DF98F9648BCFAC8675B00CA256DD300024CC6
Zoos Victoria - Melbourne Zoo, Healesville Sanctuary, Werribee Open Range Zoo
http://www.zoo.org.au/Conservation
University of Melbourne (Dept of Zoology)
CESAR
http://www.zoology.unimelb.edu.au/research/centres/cesar/index.php
ARC Centre of Excellence for Kangaroo Genomics
http://www.zoology.unimelb.edu.au/research/centres/kango/index.php
SA:
Department of Environment and Heritage
http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/research-knowledge/research.html
http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/ecological-communities/biosurveys.html
QLD:
Queensland Environment and Resource Management
http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/index.html
WA:
Department of Environment and Conservation
http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/science-and-research/animal-research/index.html
http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/programs/saving-our-species/index.html
NT:
Northern Territory Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport
http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/programs/index.html
http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/animals/threatened/index.html
http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/parks/masterplan/publications/index.html
TAS:
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (tagged on the end of portfolio)
http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/ThemeNodes/LBUN-5362MH?open
http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/LJEM-6A2VYG?open
http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/LJEM-79T3DP?open
http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/LBUN-6R2826?open
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=430
I think the generic umbrella category for this issue is 'Zoology'. Within zoology as an academic study at say the University of Melbourne, is the specialisation in 'Australian Wildlife Biology' which is described as follows:
"This subject will introduce students to the biology of Australia's vertebrate fauna with an emphasis on frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals. There will be particular focus on the adaptations of the fauna to the unique and uncertain nature of the Australian environment. A variety of topics will be discussed including diversity of Australian vertebrate groups in comparison to other parts of the world; the impact of human activities and introduced animals on native fauna; wildlife diseases; venomous fauna; and the ethics associated with research and experimentation on animals.
It would be more useful and more effective for Australian governments to talk to each other and co-ordinate and jointly fund such research in Australian Wildlife Biology. Kangaroos don't stop at political borders.
Tigerquoll wrote:
"It is as if Australians had no status beyond the British convict colony and remain a dumping ground."
Legally that is how we are treated. Our 'citizenship' contains few enshrined rights. For instance, in Victoria non-residents and non-citizens may vote in council elections if they own property. And, whereas once built property was protected from being bought up by overseas buyers, and ditto Australian companies and resources, now there is little or nothing to protect those and we actually encourage, through lower conveyancing charges in some cases, foreign property buyers.
"After 220 years of Australia's struggle into a nation (not withstanding the colonist genocide of its Aborigines), why then do we leave the flood gates open and worse, encourage immigrants to have rights to dictate their social standards?"
I think this is a purposeful technique to keep us disempowered like colonials so that a financially powerful clique may continue to run things for its own profit.
"When 300,000 foreigners arrive in Australian airports yearly, are Australians too complacent about their values and way of life for their own good?"
A real part of the problem is that this continuous influx combined with the constant reorganisation of suburbs, transport and roads, and the need to travel to work and frequently change jobs, plus the increasing demand that work makes on time, disorganises us. We cannot organise. People generally organise locally first, but our local governments have been purposefully disempowered. Try organising through a state government and you will realise how distant those politicians are and how little they do on the 'citizen's' behalf. Another thing which disorganises us is the general reliance on and trust in the mainstream press. The problem is that the mainstream press does not report matters of concern if they counter the corporate ability to continue to profit from Australia as a colony. So people may have concerns, but they do not see them mirrored anywhere else. They are not able to identify people with similar concerns in distant suburbs or even across the road or even in government. Actually, we would do better to read Hansard daily than the Age or the Herald-Sun or the Australian, since politicians do sometimes communicate there in a valuable way which is generally not reported in the newspapers or on tv.
"The majority of Australians seem too busy with their own lives to detect a noticeable change and pressure on established Australian values, so therefore don't detect immigration calls for foreign values to be a threat. Australians need a wake up call! Mass immigration with encouraged ethnic segregation ('multiculturalism' with the spin removed) brings all sort of foreign values with it. Some of those foreign values clash with 'Australian values' and are indeed foreign to Australians."
I think that a lot of Australians on every level are very concerned but, disorganised, they find it hard to recognise each other and assemble or unite in their own defense. The people organising this buy-out of our land for housing and influx of job applicants, students and business financers, are making lots of money out of it and are well organised in lobby-groups.
And the government and corporate press representing the lobby-group interests have skilfully normalised a fear in Australians of express themselves politically outside the mainstream. Look at what happens to new political parties if they try to question immigration on any or all grounds. If they object on environmental grounds they are not reported, or, if they object for cultural reasons, their members are harassed and attacked as racists. The press lead the cry and groups with no interest in democracy infiltrate groups concerned about what is happening to democracy and intimidate and isolate their main activists. And wedge politics keep people from straying away from the established parties.
If an effective challenge were led against the ruling clique (Liberal and Labour combined) that manipulates population growth for its own profit, some fear that the dirty laws brought in against terrorism would be used against us.
Joe Toscano of Anarchist Network was reviewing this situation recently (can be downloaded as a podcast), describing how
Three ministers of the crown can call out the Australian armed forces if they believe that commonwealth interests are threatened. If members of the armed forces are called out to restore order, for instance, in the face of mass strikes, or peaceful protests in the streets, once the armed forces are called out, if they maim or kill or damage property, they are legally indemnified by legislation passed within this decade, and supported by every major political party in parliament, including the Greens."
"The Federal attorney general can at any time ban any organisation, jail its members, confiscate its property, and jail anyone assisting them in their legal defense for up to 25 years because he or she has been advised by the Federal police that they may pose a threat to the Commonwealth."
"These are laws which have been passed in the last decade.
People in Aust can be legally detained, secretly, and questioned for weeks because the authorities believe thye may hva info inadvertantly which may asssist investigations. And if you refuse, you may be jailed for up to 7 years."
"It is a misguided premise that the majority of Australians and their values are not discriminated against."
Yes, we are unable to defend our property from infilling and our surroundings from being carved up and sold off. Australian citizenship carries few real rights. Mostly you defend yourself with money. No money and where are your rights? The government will not see that you are housed or fed.
"Meanwhile, in a power struggle to achieve equal status, without compromising foreign values, many new Australians bring their baggage and do not seek assimilation into their new home but want a little (insert ethnic name) and to associate with their own."
What is fascinating is the way the press seize on such minority movements and keep them alive so that they really can become a threat because any objection then makes a martyr of a person who may simply have been clinging onto a symbol for personal or idiosyncratic rather than political reasons.
Then, when 5,500 new immigrants (sometimes predominantly from one country) are suddenly settled in a growth corridor in a blow-out of city boundaries, spilling into what was once the country, no-one dares to point this out because, gee, those people are new-Australians and to say that they should not be there will be cast as racism, even though it is a protest against the intensification of settlement.
It also suits the political numbers business to be able to polarise and divide communities so that they identify in blochs. You then craft your spin to appeal to the bloch's focus in the hope that they will vote for you on this emotional issue. This used to be called 'balkanisation' and was a specialty of the Labor Party, but John Howard took it up in a big way.
"So the scarfed or burkha'd woman on the bus can seek to rely on this clause to override Australian values."
One or a few people dressing in a uniform that symbolises values antithetical to women brought up in a tradition of franchise is no big deal; it is the prospect of large blocks accumulating and undermining established rights by failing to defend them.
The government and press spin against the fear of this prospect is that we must embrace change, but it is always the incumbents who are supposed to embrace change, not the newcomers. The majority are supposed to adapt to the minority. That is not democratic. This is how Colonialism works.
"To try to debate this one is immediately dismissed as racist."
Yes, it seems totally twisted to say that a woman trying to defend the common symbols of political franchise and personal freedom - the right to show one's face in public and to wear light cool clothing in summer or shorts that free one to run or work in - is racist because she criticises the burka as a symbol of gender oppression. The burka is a symbol of gender oppression. In the middle ages europeans wore the equivalent of burkas and nuns in traditional clothing still wear habits covering their faces partially, but they are defined as a special religious class; it is not expected anymore that all women will conform to this dress or be branded or stoned in this country.
On the other hand, the coverall clothing seems to occur in places where few men have enough money to marry and those who are wealthy marry more than one woman. Women are thus status symbols and objects of jealousy by the males who do not have access to women. Although it is a symbol of oppression (and of being an object) it has also had the function of protecting women from being singled out as desirable objects worth stealing. Although they have value as status symbols and may often have personal value in the home, the women in the burkas almost always have little value publicly in terms of citizenship. I suppose that, for people who come from such cultures, it could be extremely difficult to believe that the same threats that are used to justify the burka do not exist in our culture (well, not to nearly the same degree.) At a psychological level it may be difficult to discuard a kind of clothing which has become necessary for social survival in the country of origin, in which case the retention of the burka may not be a political statement, just an artefact of foreign social conditions.
Anti-Australian is a useful expression. Maybe we need to start talking more about examples of anti-Australianism?
Sheila Newman
Hi Sheila,
I'm quite surprised that no one has added a comment here since this really seems to be one of THE central issues of what is happening in the world today. I think you are about 95% right, so this is not an "aggressive" comment - I just want to check that I understand what you have said in the way you meant to say it. You say:
The problems began with loss of land-tenure as entire peoples were disorganised and disoriented by having their traditional land removed from their control. Africa and India, for instance, had many stable populations for centuries, as testified by their high biodiversity and healthy natural systems at time of colonisation.
The first sentence I agree with. The second sentence needs a lot more explanation, clarification and verification. Are you saying that 'these societies had stable populations because they had reached the limit of their carrying capacity for the food producing technology available to the people there at that time, thus maintaining the population at a stable maximum for the given endowments/technology, but somehow not degrading the environment so as to cause a population crash'? There are examples of this: Japan in the Edo Period (1603-1868) had a more or less stable population (30-33 million) but regular famines due to poor harvests. Some (Polynesian?) island cultures are/were like this, or were somehow able to hold their population to within carrying capacity through some forms of contraception, infanticide, outmigration or premature death of older people (ubasute in Japan). Other island cultures (Easter Island) did not do this and degraded their environment until their populations crashed. There are plenty of examples of this too; the population of ancient Egypt went up and down like a yo-yo, apparently. The early civilisations of the Middle East crashed when they deforested their lands and overworked their soils or ruined the fields through salt damage caused by irrigation.
OR are you saying something different: "These societies, because of their land-tenure systems, had stable populations AND lived well within their carrying capacities"? If so we need to know a lot more about these societies, and I hope you are going to do this for us in your upcoming book. This will be interesting, and in a sense earth-shattering (if true). The 'establishment' still wants everyone to believe that food production increases through ever more sophisticated technology are necessary to 'keep up with the rising population.' I think you have done a lot to demolish this myth and to show the economic and political forces that are still trying to push it. I have 'assumed' for a long time that, contrary to the 'establishment' notions, population increase was driven by food availability - the more food available, the more the population will rise. Thus the stupidity of calling for food production increases. But you seem to be saying that this is too simplistic, and that there have historically been many cultures over large areas of the world (India and Africa) for which this has not been so. Although there are bound to be many cultural differences, how, basically, did these societies suppress their fertility? Were they just 'clever' because they knew roughly what their carrying capacity was and consciously decided to stay well within it (by having fewer offspring than they were capable of) because life was sure to be more comfortable that way? Or was there some other mechanism(s) working to keep the population in check at some optimum level well below the carrying capacity?
Or is it possible (as in the areas of N Thailand, N Burma and N Laos up until at least the second half of the 19th century) that populations in these areas simply had not reached their limits for the carrying capacity of the land? We 'know' this is true for the 'Golden Triangle' region because it was still possible to carry out semi-nomadic (periodic relocation of villages) swidden (slash and burn) cultivation up to that time. The population does seem to have been increasing, though. The land horizon (the ability to relocate villages or establish sister villages) seems to have disappeared by about the 1930s, but this is at least partly (largely?) due to pressure from lowland populations seeking new farmland in relatively mountainous areas.
Hope you have time to reply, even if briefly, to the above and look forward to your answer, and in the (near?) future to reading your book.
Best wishes,
Tony
I draw Cowboy's attention to the message and not the messenger. My Message above is in respect to the NSW Feral Animal Cntrl Amedment Bill 2009 to: 'exclude all native animals as 'game' and prohibit the use of dogs in all hunting and shooting and you will have me starting to listen to proposals by The Shooters Party to control feral animals. But as for controlling feral animals in National Parks in NSW, this is an ecological management matter for DECC to be held accountable for.'
This issue is all about the Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2009 before the NSW Legislative Council, so the debate ought remain centred around the facts of the Bill.
Cowboy’s comment above is big on denials, inferences and personal attack but short on facts to support his (her) claims; a bit like Chris, but more feral. Cowboy's labelling of 'hoplophobia' (the fear of firearms) is a typical defence used by gun rights advocates as a derogatory term against anyone critical of them. Personally, I have trained on the L1A1 SLR and have great respect for professionals expertly and legally weapons trained. Cowboy shooters give the professional a bad name. But there is no benefit in descending to personal attacks (argument 'ad hominem').
Back to this so-called Feral Control Bill:
Where is the substantiation to support this Bill?
1. If the Bill is one of targeting ferals, why does it include native animals in National Parks?
2. If the Bill is one of targeting ferals, why is it limited to shooting and not other control means?
3. Why are the government authorities most qualified to control feral animals not granted the delegated responsibility for this Bill?
4. Where in this Bill does it specify controls on the time of day that shooting can take place? (i.e. it is 24/7)
5. Where in this Bill does it specify how shooting is to be independently policed? It doesn't.
6. Where in this Bill does it specify that only qualified marksman trained in species identification will be permitted to engage in feral hunting in national parks? Why are recreational hunters permitted without the high standards of marksmanship and species recognition training?
7. Where in the Bill are inexperienced recreational hunters prohibited from such shooting? These are the 'weekend warriors' that give the contract professionals a bad name, yet the The Game Council is not going out of its way to distinguish these two extremes.
8. Who will be monitor, police and breath test the shooters?
9. Who will watchdog those monitoring the shooters to ensure legal, environmental and ethical standards are complied with?
Shooters an "elite segment of society"? - come on
I question firearms owners being a labelled an "elite segment of society”
All it takes is to be cleared of a criminal record and paying a licence fee. Even a 12 year old can get a Minors Firearms Permit! A Personal Firearm Licence can be paid at any RTA office with a photo ID. No need to walk into a police station to apply like in the old days.
Under The (NSW) Fireams Act 1996 Part 2, Division 1, Clause 10 'Applications for Licences, all that is required to be granted a firearms licence is:
* be over 18,
* show proof of ID,
* be someone who has not been convicted of an offence within the past 10 years,
* not subject to an apprehended violence order,
* not subject to a good behaviour bond,
* not deemed not a risk to public safety.
* pay the licence fee
Convicted backbacker murderer, Ivan Milat, was a legally licenced shooter and got through these stringent 'elite' tests and he owned multiple longarm firearms.
How does this reflect upon the test standards for firearm owners?
Since 18 August 2008, the Firearms Amendment Act 2008 has required unlicenced persons seeking a licence for longarms undertake and pass an approved Firearms Safety Qualification (Long-arms) Course. This is admittedly a step in the right direction.
SOURCE: NSW Shooting Centre
Lack of professional controls for shooters
Under Firearms Regulation 2006 (NSW) clause 28 ‘Recreational hunting/vermin control—persons who are not members of approved hunting clubs’, an applicant can obtain a firearm licence without being a member of an approved hunting club in order to engage in recreational hunting/vermin control so long as they obtain and hold written proof of permission to shoot on rural land by the landholder which must describe the land to which the permission relates and the type of game to be shot.
But there is nothing in the legislation to enable a firearm holder to have a licence suspended or revoked as a result of shooting protected wildlife.
The NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, not the Game Council should be the prescribed authority for all vertebrate pest animal control.
Poor Species identification training
It is quite obvious that a feral animal is not synonymous with a native animal. One would hope that a shooter can distinguish a rabbit from a wombat, but what training exists to ensure natives are not mistakenly shot. Where is the policing to ensure that natives are not shot intentionally?
"Conservation Hunters"?
Suerly, this is oxymoronic spin. The term 'professional contract shooter' ought to be distinguisged from recreational shooter. If this Bill is to genuinely seek a professional approach to feral animal control it must specifically exclude recreational shooters and the weekend warrior element.
"Ancestral & cultural right to hunt"?
The loose premise of some "ancestral & cultural right to hunt" - may apply to traditional Aborigines using traditional methods on traditional lands away from populated areas, but to quote the Game Council's NSW Hunter eduication Handbook.. "in today's world, hunting is no longer a necessity for most of us, but is something we are never the less driven to the associations with our past." (p4.1.5). So this rather dubious argument says hunting is justified by some nostalgic notion of being connected to early colonists.
Cowboy, I draw your attention to the following extracts taken from recent specific research
and experience in feral animal control in Tasmania dealing with foxes:
'FOXES IN TASMANIA: A REPORT ON AN INCURSION BY AN INVASIVE SPECIES [June 2006] by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.
7.4.3 Shooting
“The shooting of foxes has been a popular control technique used particularly by the agricultural community. It is ineffective in significantly reducing fox population numbers, is highly biased towards naïve juveniles and sub-adults and not suitable where dense cover is available for foxes (Coman 1988, Saunders et al. 1995). Shooting is usually done at night from a vehicle with the aid of a spotlight. This method relies on the ability of the shooter to approach the animal until it is in shooting range. Some shooters try and lure animals into range by using whistles. Coman (1988) reported that as the season progressed, fewer foxes could be shot due to either the removal of naïve foxes or learned avoidance of shooters.
Shooting has the advantage of producing evidence of the kill. Shooting is often promoted as an effective control technique to perpetuate access to lands for the purpose of hunting. Debating the merits or disadvantages of using shooters to remove foxes from Tasmania is probably counterproductive. Examination of historical attempts at fox bounty systems is sufficient to realise that shooting alone is not an eradication tool. Where used opportunistically and in association with normal recreational activities, the removal of individual foxes, as seen, may be appropriate. This would particularly apply in remote areas where a rapid follow-up response will be difficult. However, reliance on shooting as the
primary technique, either by professional or recreational hunters will fail.
Responding to individual reliable sightings of foxes by hunting alone should also be discouraged. Baiting should always be the primary strategy. The risk of a failed shot and subsequent change in the behaviour of the fortunate fox will also make subsequent efforts to kill it even more difficult.”
And The Game Council of NSW is proposing to the government a wild open season on ferals and natives alike, entrusting it to any tom dick recreational shooter from 12 years old and upwards? Contract professional shooters and feral vertebrate animal controllers should feel damn right insulted.
Many years ago while visiting Hong Kong a Chines business man asked me about coming to Australia.
He said, "If I was to come to Australia to live how would I be received being of Chinese background"
I replied " any one qualifying to migrate to Australia from where I live would be very welcome providing they respect our customs and laws and come as friends. they will be treated the same way.
Well of course since then we have people coming from all over the world who do just this and in fact they make a great contribution to the Australian way of life. Then we have the others who choose to bring their baggage with them they do not wish to assimilate, they do not wish to become our friends, they choose to wear full Birka's in public.
Can anyone explain to me how can you get to know someone who wishes to hide behind a mask. This practice should be outlawed in this country as it has been in France If they do not wish to become one of us they have no place in this country and it is obvious what their long term goal is. To bring Sharia law in when they eventually obtain a total majority in this country,and the way they breed you do not have to be Einstein to work it out,give them 30 years and they will have the numbers.
Is it any wonder they wish to practice polygamy and have two or three wives. we will have racial unrest in this great land such as you have never seen.
So, I say to our Muslim friends If you wish to come and assimilate like all of the other beautiful people of the world come and be our friends ,take off your masks and be one of us otherwise go home we don't want you.
It is time our Government stopped pussy footing about and Banned the Birka.
RD, The Independent Australian looks worthy of the same genre. I like the motto: 'a politically incorrect magazine of ideas and comment outside the mainstream.'
Looking again at 'News Weekly', this publication is clearly a publication outlet for The National Civic Council (NCC) which "seeks to shape public policy on cultural, family, social, political, economic and international issues of concern to Australia." Whether one agrees or disagrees with the philosophy, policies and principles of the NCC, the concept of seeking to shape public policy takes journalism that next step from simple reporting to social and political influencing.
Actually, I personally disagree with some of the NCC's philosophies, policies and principles, but irrespective of that I consider its focus on shaping public policy quite worthy.
The reason for me highlighting these alternative online media options is to point out that CanDoBetter operates within this online political analysis journalism genre. Call it 'citizen journalism', 'participatory journalism', 'political blogging' or whatever, this online medium is evolving from an infancy phase to a growth phase.
A threat to the mainstream media
Now the mainstream media have finally become alerted to this. They are seeing their traditional readership decline away from print and to online and to these alternative online media channels. Fairfax now charges for access to some of its articles for a nominal $2 fee. The Fairfax yet to be launched online 'The National Times' threatens to be Fairfax's reactive attempt to claw back its political analytic readership. It is important that we are all aware of the market place for political comment and analysis and watch it as it changes and evolves.
Citizen Journalism
Wikipedia explains that 'citizen journalism' "(also known as "public", "participatory", "democratic"[1] or "street journalism"[2]) is the concept of members of the public "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information," according to the seminal 2003 report We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information.[3] Authors Bowman and Willis say: "The intent of this participation is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires."
CanDoBetter: where to from here?
Noting the mission of candobetter.org is "to encourage ordinary people to engage themselves with the political processes that determine the course of our society," so CanDoBetter would seem to fit within this realm and has real opportunities to establish its presence and influence.
But the real value add in this genre for participating websites is being more accessible to its target readership (user-friendly/feature rich) and to take issues beyond a skin deep reporting/opinion level towards building an insightful 'think tank' influencing approach on political issues - in a sense provide influence and leadership direction rather than just opinion. Of course this is up to the owners of this website.
The traditional media criticise citizen journalism as not being objective, but in reality who is purely objective when it comes to journalistic opinion?
This new approach to journalistic analysis will leave the mainstream media for dead and instead of other independent journalistic sites being regarded as competion, competing for the same readership, these site will be complimentary to the debate and analysis. The beneficiaries will be the contributors, the readers and society as knowledge and analysis is shared. It is a consistent benefit of free exchange as that provided by the Internet itself.
This heralds a paradigm shift in journalistic analysis. A shift not suited to commercial profit making and so a real threat to traditional mainstream media, and they know it. Yet, the rise of citizen journalism (of people who omnce were the audience) it is indeed suited to developing sophisticated insights and policies to deal effectively with complex issues and so enable 'ordinary people to determine the course of our society'.
It sounds like a very 'managed' environmental conference and 'managed' environmental conferences generally turn into entertainment festivals with sponsors, professional speakers or speakers from outside the community, and only very general environmental messages, so as not to discourage immigration, property development, big garden stores and supermarkets by allowing locals to have a voice.
Menkit has a political position which is different from mine but we are a long way away from a head-on collision.
My political position says that, vegan or (less) meat-eating, if our economy is organised centrally and distantly, we are doomed to biological, economic and social impoverishment and slavery.
I think we are on the road to insufficient calories per capita on a global level because we are destroying our soils and water, and the fossil fuels to make our industrial food production and distribution systems work are becoming scarcer, but we have already arrived at ambient malnutrition and pockets of starvation in many places. If we distributed food according to need, rather than according to capacity to pay, probably no-one would go hungry ... for a while. In North America, Australia, Canada and Europe, and even among the elite of some third world countries, some people are having fat sucked out of them via machines (liposuction) whereas the poor of the world do not get enough fat to eat.
This situation coincided, however, with internationalisation of economies, where local power to produce food and participate politically in an effective manner, and to adjust population to the local carrying capacity, were abrogated and confused by the removal of power and production to distant places and large industrially based systems.
I am worried that a plan to feed the world using grains would run into the same problem of internationalised, profit-based economies. I imagine, for instance, corporations destroying all the wild biodiversity in the richest regions in order to produce the grain to 'feed the world'.
What would then happen to the marginal lands, where you cannot grow crops? My understanding is that farmers will always grow crops where they can because they can get a far higher return for them. On marginal lands they run grazing animals because those animals can move over a very wide area to sustain themselves.
So what would happen to people who live in marginal areas, if we all went vegan? I don't think they would be able to produce enough food for themselves. Perhaps then, we should abandon the marginal lands and only live where crops and food trees can be grown?
Would that mean that more of us would crowd into the hot biodiversity spots (that occur on the richest land)?
One would hope that big business would not stop us, as it tries to now, from allowing our populations to diminish to adjust to more biodiversity and socially friendly small-scale societies.
One would hope that big business would not stop us from occupying those rich areas in small populations, harmonious with the local fauna, as it is trying to do now because it wants to develop those areas for real-estate and crop-growing.
Another thing in Menkit's speech was the statement that we would all die in four years if bees became extinct. Is she allowing for the transport of pollen by flower wasps and other insects and animals, which might take over the task if bees were not around? What about the fact that most members of the grass family (including wheat, barley, rye, rice, bamboo and corn) are wind pollinated and non-dependant on bees? See, for instance, Pollination and Reproductive Behavior of Crop Plants, by Dr. C Kameswara Rao. I feel a bit bad about using Dr Kameswara's article because it appears on a biotech industry blog which informs an industry that wants to take over more biodiverse land to produce crops on an industrial scale using artificial methods, with the excuse of 'feeding the world'.
I have read that the grass family feeds, directly or indirectly over 90% of the World's population. Statements in this
Encarta source would support that view.
The problem of grain-cropping marginal or range lands (which, merging with hot desert, comprise 75% of Australian land) is raised in this article, Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler.
"Another suggestion is a return to grazing beef, a very real alternative as long as you accept the psychologically difficult and politically unpopular notion of eating less of it. That’s because grazing could never produce as many cattle as feedlots do. Still, said Michael Pollan, author of the recent book “In Defense of Food,” “In places where you can’t grow grain, fattening cows on grass is always going to make more sense.”"
The statement appears in an article on a Prout website. Prout is an organisation with a non-denominational religious base that promotes, "Economy of the People, For the People and By the People! Put Economic Power in the Hands of the People!"
The article is interesting because it shows an awareness that human social organisation on a local scale permits a variety of lifestyles in tune with much lower carrying capacity. One such lifestyle is the semi-nomadic one of following grazing animals around their range. (When the Somalis still supplemented local grain economies with semi-nomadic herding economies, they had stable populations that could survive droughts. When they got wells and turned to intensified agriculture, their societies produced landless people who could not survive droughts. That's what western 'food-aid and agriculture' does.)
The Prout article also makes this statement:
"Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States."
The use of grain to feed cattle on the scale it happens in America is a recent development.
The economics professor's use of the term 'efficiency' is skewed here to mean 'most direct route to human stomachs'. Biological efficiency would mean allowing the world to return to a functionally biodiverse state and that would certainly not mean a population of 6.6 or 9 or 11 billion humans. Financial efficiency simply means cornering the most production for paying humans, meanwhile throwing us socially and ecologically into chaos - half of us starving and the rest of us needing liposuction. So many questions arise. For instance, why would we increase crop production just to feed more humans when we already have enough food to feed them? There is an even greater need to question the belief that human populations must continue to grow when humans, on a local basis, had long been able to control their populations down to the local carrying capacity, well before the invention of the pill.
Another big question of our time is, why do we see so often versions of this statement, also by Dr Dr. C Kameswara Rao, "I am not a scientist, but rummage around in the scientific research about GM and a clear picture emerges: if we want to reduce starvation and “feed the world”, as Sir Bob Geldof et al tell us every Christmas, we must go GM. The argument in favour of GM crops begins with a simple one: the world is growing fast."
The answer that comes to my mind is that GM and agriculture with and without GM are big business and big business does not like local economic and political empowerment because the case for massive GM crop production does not exist in local economies run well within their local carrying capacity. Global GM mass crop production for profit needs run-away population growth to survive. The human population could survive quite well without GM as long as it did not continue to grow or to provide massive profits for a few shareholders in a globalised economy.
So, for me, the problems of preserving rich plant and animal biodiversity, reducing carbon gas emissions, decreasing wealth and increasing political empowerment seem to lie in the relocalisation of our economies. That may give people the choice of eating vegan in some societies but not in others. I am open to argument here.
The Prout organisation put out a film some while back about Venezuela. It was done by the same person who made No Woolies in Maleny. I found the organisation's use of religion interesting because, as I recollect, it was felt that it is easier to communicate ideas as beliefs than as systems to be learned... maybe we need an article by Prout here. On a local level when the religion itself is local and functions to preserve the environment and local working systems, religion seems to work. Where a religion is generalised into an overarching abstract set of rules and applied over a wide variety of locations, peoples and systems, then it dictates absurd behaviour and prevents people from acting on their own behalf from local information - in much the same way as does the global economic growth economy - which, come to think of it, is really a religion.
The arguments Menkit alludes to about cruelty to animals are particularly convincing when you look at our industrial processing of other species as food. The scale of cruelty, of deprivation of liberty far exceeds, but ressembles in its systematic pseudo-efficiency (to feed the world) the nazi concentration camp system.
This is yet another argument for relocalisation with view to allowing our populations to reduce naturally.
Would the quality of food available to most of us in our industrialised overdrawn system be adequate to lead vegan lifestyles, especially if we don't have access to land to grow our own food on? The rate of obesity seems indicative of some decline in food vitality. Menkit, in her Essential Oils cookbook (which communicates fabulous recipes and useful technologies), talks as if finely ground flour can cause diabetes. Although I do not know her source for this, I do know that there is a lot of evidence that many people cannot cope with low GI foods and that the introduction of flour and sugar to Australian aborigines and other indigenous people coincided with high rates of diabetes and obesity. But low GI industrially produced foods are more and more the only ones available to many people. And big business and a government near you are pushing for this situation to expand.
In conclusion, I don't think that all of Menkit's claims were right, but I don't think that she should be stopped from talking at a conservation festival. James Sinnamon, who comments on this article as well, often makes the point that so many political rallies, including conservation festivals, consist of talking heads standing up there as if they were the ultimate authority. Audiences are allowed a short 'question period', when really a discussion should open, involving all those with something to say.
I note that Menkit previously spoke every year. Perhaps the problem is, once again, partly due to the breaking down of the local society where she lives, in favour of bringing in outside 'authorities'. In a localised society of comfortable size, everyone gets a voice and no-one is a comprehensive expert.
Cut the Menkits from a small town and suddenly you have a bunch of newcomer ignoramuses racing cars through national parks and building blocks of flats on local farmland with the rest of the population completely sidelined like so many suburbanites in Sydney or Melbourne, sitting in front of t.v. watching the 'real people'.
None of us is a complete authority when you get right down to it. But big populations hierarchialise and specialise, creating illusions of authority either through credentialism, professional politics, religion, and big bucks. So, if you have a professorship or a profession, you can get up there and make claims about kangaroo populations and a judge or a politician will take your claims seriously even if they are wrong. Likewise, if you have a lot of money, you can get up and say what you like about growing our population being a good thing. The recently deceased Mr Richard Pratt's self-serving performance at the Melbourne Population summit of 2002 was an example of this.
For me the big issue is that big societies remove the choice of going vegan or not to some decision way above our individual heads. And that decision is likely to be made by someone whose reasons would not stand up on a local basis but who we will never be able to question.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Another independent current affairs journal:
The Independent Australian - "Socially and culturally conservative, conservationist, and above all, proud to be Australian."
If you enjoy a bit of political incorrectness, sticking a pin into the puffery of the self proclaimed intellectual elites, as well as some serious analysis of current issues which the mainstream media is too PC or scared to print, dip into this website (still under construction). It will give you an insight into the contents of The Independent Australian magazine.
We are at the forefront of questioning conventional wisdom; for example, right from the start we have opposed Multiculturalism. Now we find that commentators, even from the bleeding heart and soft left-liberal elites, are starting to question the very basis of this State sponsored religion. Similarly we have long advocated tightening up eligibility laws for citizenship.
Our Green Pages do not rabbit on endlessly about old growth forests (important as they are), rather we tackle the basic issues of reconciling population growth with sustainability, look realistically at alternative power supplies and transport modes. The establishment environmental groups, the Greens and the Australian Conservation Foundation, are more concerned with ideological social issues than sustainability.
Nowhere else will you find support for giving more power to the people via Citizen Initiated Referenda, an idea abhorrent to the Left and Right power brokers. And we are right behind those who support freedom of speech and the right to publish, including views diametrically opposed to us.
Conservative does not mean we support economic policies such as handing over natural monopolies to private enterprise and signing 'free' (but not fair) trade agreements with centrally controlled economies like China. Nor did we like some of the Coalition Industrial Relations proposals.
We hope that the website will inspire you to subscribe. If you would like to see before you buy, you can get a complimentary copy free.
Background Information
The Independent Australian magazine grew from discussions among people of independent views, especially Davydd Williams. Some must remain anonymous, because they are still in employment. The fate of the vocally politically incorrect is exclusion from employment or promotion.
The Independent Australian is published by Independent Australian Publications Pty Ltd. The editor is Peter Wilkinson. A company is the most convenient vehicle to handle the business aspects, but the venture is about dissemination of ideas, not profit-making. Any success will be ploughed back into improvement of content, presentation and circulation.
The following, while not all strictly 'independent', offer some alternative reading and analysis of current affairs issues in Australia. I am sure there are others. Notably, the fact that Fairfax is about to launch a dedicated online political analysis magazine 'The National Times' in August 2009 indicates corporate recognition of the healthy growth in Australian online journalism and blogging. The media landscape is changing. Feedback welcome.
The Monthly
'The Monthly (is) a national magazine of politics, society and the arts, arrived in 2005. It is published by the people who bring you Black Inc. books and the Quarterly Essay. It is unlike any Australian publication that has come and gone before.
The Monthly is intelligent and inquisitive, witty and wise. It doesn’t dumb down or suck up. The Monthly is rooted in simple but powerful storytelling. It doesn’t moan, or earbash, or take itself too seriously. The Monthly gives space to long essays and thoughtful reviews, to investigative journalism and zingy reportage, to bold photography and a brash design. It doesn’t get bogged down in bloated columns by boring hacks. The Monthly is human.
Only Australia’s best writers light up The Monthly’s stage: Helen Garner, Don Watson, John Birmingham, Mungo MacCallum, Shane Maloney, Ashley Hay, Drusilla Modjeska, Clive James, Gideon Haigh, Amanda Lohrey, Chloe Hooper, Malcolm Knox, Robert Manne. The Monthly dares them to get mud on their laptops. If Australia’s existing magazines are stuck in a rut, growing fatter yet thinner, then The Monthly is like a free-spirited friend who comes to visit, full of stories, insight, wit and surprise.'
Crikey
'Crikey is Australian for independent journalism.
There are two arms to Crikey: our website and the Crikey Daily Mail, a daily subscription email service.
The website: This is where we??present a selection of Crikey’s original content along with links to stories from all corners of the web. Crikey editors are across thousands of online sources, from the most earnest to the most eclectic. If it’s interesting and newsworthy, chances are it’ll be on crikey.com.au.
Crikey Daily Mail: Around lunchtime every weekday, the Crikey Daily Mail hits the inboxes of thousands of subscribers. This email edition of 25 or more original stories is crammed with news, analysis, insider gossip, reviews and prescient tips about politics, media, business, the law, culture and national and international affairs.
Crikey’s aim is to bring its readers the inside word on what’s really going on in politics, government, media, business, the arts, sport and other aspects of public life in Australia. Crikey reveals how the powerful operate behind the scenes, and it tackles the stories insiders are talking about but other media can’t or won’t cover.
Crikey sees its role as part of the so-called fourth estate that acts as a vital check and balance on the activities of government, the political system and the judiciary. In addition, Crikey believes the performance and activities of business, the media, PR and other important sectors are worthy of public scrutiny.'
New Matilda
'Launched in August 2004, newmatilda.com is an independent Australian website of news, analysis and satire. Believing that robust media is fundamental to a healthy democracy, newmatilda.com aims to provide non-partisan information ? it has no association with any political party or media organisation.
newmatilda.com provides intelligent coverage of Australian politics, business, consumerism, civil society, international affairs, media and culture for a global audience. As well as offering an understanding of current events against a broad historical and political backdrop, it features issues and ideas often left untouched by the mainstream media.
newmatilda.com publishes the work of writers from a wide range of backgrounds. They are journalists, current and former politicians, lawyers, critical and creative thinkers, bloggers, policy-wonks and satirists. Unsolicited submissions are welcome.
Registered readers (free) can choose to receive notice of the latest content by favourite writers or of topics of interest. They are also encouraged to participate in debates on the issues we cover through the comments section that follows each article.'
The National Times
['the Age', 13th June, 2009] 'FAIRFAX Media is set to relaunch one of Australia's historic newspaper brands, The National Times, as an opinion and editorial website covering the nation's political and national affairs debates.
The online revival as Nationaltimes.com.au comes more than two decades after the paper and its short-term successor, the Times on Sunday, were forced to fold in the wake of the 1987 October share crash and Warwick Fairfax's failed takeover of the publisher.
"The National Times brand was synonymous with intelligent and thought-provoking journalism," Fairfax Media chief executive Brian McCarthy said.
"It informed and encouraged debate on the important issues of the day and that will be the commitment of our new online site."
Incurring public wrath from powerbrokers such as former NSW Premier Neville Wran, and prime ministers Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, The National Times won praise and notoriety for its independent and confronting journalism.
Under editors such as Max Suich, David Marr and Brian Toohey, several of its stories prompted the establishment of royal commissions.
The website will replace the opinion section on news sites including theage.com.au and will feature the best of Fairfax's opinion writing, commentary and analysis, coupled with guest commentaries from politicians, academics and other public figures, the publisher said in a statement.
Fairfax Digital chief Jack Matthews said the advertising-funded site, which had been months in the planning, would include interactive features such as blogging tools, forums and polls to engage readers in debates. The new site will go online in August.'
Another one is :
News Weekly
Indeed, logging, thinning and frequent burning (forest practices) over Australia's 220 year colonial history have and continue to destroy the integrity of our native forests and force our native fauna closer to extinction. Colonial 'clearing' for agriculture and building materials destroyed most of south eastern Australia's natural landscape. Neo-colonial practices including unchecked urban invasion and prescribed burning continue to do destroy what's left.
Australia's original natural landscape is characterised by varied topography and varied mosaics of different vegetation types. Broad scale destruction of native vegetation across south eastern Australia has reduced the remnant forest and heath habitat into fragmented and isolated islands. Many specific habitat types are now threatened and endangered as a consequence. Wet schelophyll has being transformed into dry schlerophyll. Note the fire resistent species that return after a fire - Acacias (wattles), tea tree and Eucalypts. These then dominate the new growth and when the next fire occurs they burn more intensely and exacerbate the wildfire. Frequent prescribed burning makes our remnant forests more susceptible to wildfire. Frequent prescribed burning and uncontrolled broadscale bushfire are by area and impact are responsible for the loss of our remaining biodiversity and ecological values across south eastern Australia.
This is even though prescribed burning has been found not to prevent ember attack - the main cause of wildfire spread in extreme bushfire weather conditions! Frequent broadacre burning policies have limited effectiveness at mitigating wildfire risk (its intended aim). The previous "NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner, Phil Koperberg, echoed similar sentiments when faced with criticism after the 2002 fires: ‘Unless you’re going to keep all of New South Wales hazard reduced to a point where there is no fuel on the ground…we’re going to have fires’ (McKey 2002)." SOURCE: http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2003/02/brandes.html
ACB Submission to the Teague Commission on Victoria's 2009 Bushfires
The Australian Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) at Monash University has made a submission to Teague Commission on Victoria's 2009 Bushfires, and addresses the fundamental question: 'Can fire and land management practices and policies be modified to minimise the future risk of similarly catastrophic bushfires without compromising Victoria's native ecosystems and the biodiversity that they support?'
ACB in its submission, has offered the following warnings of how broadscale frequent burning threatens our native forests:
"Natural fire is a complex physical process that affects organisms, communities, and landscapes in various ways. The spatial and temporal variability of these impacts depends on the intensity and frequency of fires in an area, that is, the fire regime."
"Inevitably, after a major bushfire, there are calls to increase the amount and frequency of fuel reduction burns. However, increasing the rate of fuel-reduction burns is, in effect, changing the fire regime in an ecosystem and may have substantial ecological implications.
"The application of fuel-reduction burning to mitigate fire risk, therefore, needs to be critically questioned on two fronts.
First, will increasing the frequency and amount of prescribed burning reduce fire risks at the landscape scale?
Second, how will changing the fire regime through increased fuel-reduction burning impact on native ecosystems? Will increasing fuel-reduction burning lower fire risks?
"Theoretical studies have also shown that fuel-reduction burning at the landscape scale can reduce the risk of large, catastrophic fires. However, these studies make important assumptions about the other point of the fire triangle: climate. Under most reasonable climatic conditions, fuel reduction burns done sufficiently frequently may reduce the risk of large fires. However, under extreme climatic conditions, such as those that preceded Black Saturday, this may not hold. As of Friday, 6 February 2009, approximately one-third of Victoria’s public lands had been subjected to fuel-reduction burns since 2003; that is, ~5% of public lands were subjected to fuel-reduction burns each year. This was the target set in an earlier Parliamentary Enquiry and clearly did not prevent the Black Saturday fires. Modeling studies suggest that the amount of fuel reduction burns would need to be doubled, at least, to have any potential for avoiding similarly catastrophic fires if conditions of such extreme fire danger re-occur in the future."
"Increasing fuel-reduction burning to proposed levels (10-15% of public lands per year) would reduce habitat diversity by homogenizing the regional fire regime. The diversity of habitats and their mosaic distribution across the Victorian landscape is a critical component in maintaining local and regional biodiversity. The interdigitation of sites differing in their susceptibility to fire provides temporary refuges for animals that can move away from fires and later recolonise their original sites. More frequent fuel-reduction burning will change the structure and composition of the understorey vegetation. While many animals may be better able to survive the low-intensity fuelreduction, the resultant vegetation may be poor-quality habitat."
"Applying a single prescribed burning policy to Victoria’s public lands will disadvantage a large proportion of the native biodiversity and reduce local and regional habitat diversity. Shifting
toward more homogeneous landscapes through increased prescribed burning will be detrimental to the long-term conservation of biodiversity in Victoria."
"Increased prescribed burning may reduce fire risks in some years, but is unlikely to have any effect in those years with extreme climatic conditions similar to those of 2009."
"A uniform and widespread increase in fuel-reduction burning across Victoria’s public lands will likely have negative long-term impacts on the native flora and fauna."
ACB's recommendation:
"We recommend that the State government consider a more nuanced policy that acknowledges the spatial complexity of Victoria’s landscapes and the values associated with them. We recommend that increased prescribed burning be focused in high-risk areas directly surrounding towns to minimize threats to people and property. However, for more remote, unpopulated areas, where the primary values are biodiversity and timber, we believe that fire management plans should be based on the best available science, that they should be consistent with the appropriate historical fire regimes, and that they provide an integrated, long-term vision for Victoria’s natural heritage."
SOURCE: www.biolsci.monash.edu.au/research/acb/docs/teague-commission.pdf
Great one, Tony!
Here it is:
By "managing" our forests and clearing native vegetation, along with the conditions of drought and climate change, we are actually making them drier and less dense, and thus adding to the risk of mega-fires.
While our State government continues to permit the logging and thinning of our native forests and water catchment areas, the public can do little to prevent further mega fires.
The dry conditions means that trees suffer and compete for water. They lose their leaves, or die, thus exacerbating the dry undergrowth problem. Instead of moisture, forests continue to become more vulnerable. It is then a cycle downwards to damaged ecosystems, and thus more fire dangers.
On Wednesday I had this tentative thumbs up from Glenn Dewhurst about the cockatoos:
"Sheila,
I think we had a win last night. We are able to keep all the aviaries on site under conditions set by the council.
I am unsure what conditions have been put upon us.
They said the minutes will be released Today at 12pm on the below link.
I will email tonight the results once I get to have a look.
Thanks again for all your support and that of your friends; I can say that they were over whelmed with the level of support.
Here is the link: http://www.gosnells.wa.gov.au/default-gosnells.asp
The minutes of the meeting are to be found here:http://www.gosnells.wa.gov.au/upload/gosnells/3BE3CF7EAAB64C4EBAADC8588B8BD715.pdf
My reading of the minutes is also cautiously optimistic although it looks like a lot of work and expense for Glenn over a short period of time. My main qualm is this requirement, "That the number of birds housed on the property be limited to the extent that the noise generated does not exceed the Environmental Protection (noise abatement regulations)." In view of the admission by the noise expert that wild cockatoos contribute to the noise from the caged cockatoos (in rehab, due to be freed) how would the 'appropriate' number of birds be estimated? Would there be any implication for the wild birds?
I have cut and pasted the bulk of the council decision below, minus some formatting:
"CONCLUSION
The proposal to retain the eight outbuildings already constructed with the exception of Outbuilding E, is supported for the following reasons:
• The as of right requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and Local Planning Policy 6.2.3 – Outbuildings – Rural and Residential Areas have not been met, however any negative impacts can be addressed through conditions
of approval.
• Noise emitted from the aviaries would comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 if the existing Outbuilding E is relocated and modified in accordance with the recommendations of the noise consultant.
• The outbuildings are not considered to have a detrimental impact on the visual
amenity of the local area.
Item 17.1 Continued
23 of 115
The proposal to construct an additional outbuilding is not supported for the following reasons:
• The proposed outbuilding would result in an aggregate outbuilding floor area on the subject property of 885m², which is considered to be excessive within the Rural zone.
• Noise emitted from the part of the proposed outbuilding to be used for the care of sick and injured birds is likely to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining property.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Nil.
STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS
• Town Planning Scheme No. 6 Clause 9.2 and 11.2.
• Local Planning Policy 6.2.3 – Outbuildings – Rural and Residential Areas
• The Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 – Regulation 5 (2)(b)
VOTING REQUIREMENTS
Simple majority required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 of 4)
Moved Cr PM Morris Seconded Cr R Mitchell
That Council grant retrospective approval for seven outbuildings with an
aggregate floor area of 451m² at 49 (Lot 100) Douglas Road, Martin,
identified as Outbuildings A, B, C, F, G, J and K as contained in
Attachment A, subject to the following conditions:
1. A landscaping plan for the development site is to be submitted in accordance with the City’s development landscaping policy and approved by the City’s Technical Landscape Officer. The plan is to show how all outbuildings are to be screened from the view of Lot 101 Douglas Road. Such Landscaping is to be installed within 3 months of the date of this approval and maintained by the owner/occupier to the satisfaction of the City’s Landscape Technical Officer.
2. The submission of a lighting plan for the subject property, which is to be approved by the City’s Manager of Technical Services, prior to the issue of a Building Licence.
3. The approved outbuildings are not to be used for habitation, commercial or industrial purposes.
4. Stormwater drainage from the outbuildings is to be contained on site.
5. A Demolition Licence is to be obtained for the removal of the existing unauthorised outbuilding in the general location of Outbuilding D as contained in Attachment A to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager Building Services.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (2 of 4)
Moved Cr PM Morris Seconded Cr R Mitchell That Council refuse to grant approval to the proposed outbuilding of
256m2 depicted in the location of Outbuilding D on the plan contained in Attachment A at 49 (Lot 100) Douglas Road, Martin and as submitted in revised plans received on 25 May 2009, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed floor area of 256m² would result in an aggregate outbuilding floor area on the property of 885m², which is considered to be excessive within the Special Rural zone.
2. The proposed outbuilding is proposed to be used for the keeping of birds, but has not been included within the noise assessment conducted on the property. Given that the proposed outbuilding is closer to the dwelling on the adjacent Lot 101 Douglas Road than the existing aviary, which has been identified as requiring relocation or remediation measures to reduce noise impacts, it is considered that the proposed outbuilding has potential to
adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (3 of 4)
Moved Cr PM Morris Seconded Cr R Mitchell
That Council refuse to grant retrospective approval to the 10m2 outbuilding identified as Outbuilding E on the plan contained in Attachment A at 49 (Lot 100) Douglas Road, Martin and require the following actions to be undertaken within 90 days:
1. Relocate the outbuilding to the north-western side of the subject property to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.
2. The outbuilding to be reorientated so that only its enclosed sides are facing south.
3. The outbuilding is to be enclosed with Colorbond cladding on two sides and the roof.
4. The outbuilding is to be insulated to the satisfaction of the Manager Health Services.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (4 of 4)
Moved Cr PM Morris Seconded Cr R Mitchell
That Council advise the applicant that a Building Application is to be lodged providing scaled drawings of each of the buildings for which retrospective planning approval has been granted and of the relocated Outbuilding E, to the satisfaction of the Manager Building Services.
Amendment
During debate Cr R Hoffman moved the following amendment to staff recommendation (4 of 4):
“That staff recommendation (4 of 4) be amended by inserting after the word “services” where it appears in the last line, the following:
“with such application to be lodged, along with the relevant application fees, with the City within 60 days of this meeting”.
Cr R Hoffman provided the following written reason for the proposed amendment:
“To provide clear guidance to the applicant as to when the application is to be lodged.”
Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Hoffman’s proposed amendment.
The Mayor put Cr R Hoffman’s proposed amendment, which reads:
Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr J Brown
That staff recommendation (4 of 4) be amended by inserting after the word “services” where it appears in the last line, the following:
“with such application to be lodged, along with the relevant application fees, with the City within 60 days of this meeting”.
with the amended recommendation to read:
“That Council advise the applicant that a Building Application is to be lodged providing scaled drawings of each of the buildings for which retrospective planning approval has been granted and of the relocated Outbuilding E, to the satisfaction of the Manager Building Services, with such application to be lodged, along with the relevant application fees, with the City within 60 days of this meeting”.
CARRIED 10/0
FOR: Cr B Wiffen, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr C Fernandez,
Cr W Barrett, Cr P Morris, Cr T Brown, Cr R Mitchell, and Cr O Searle.
AGAINST: Nil.
The amendment was put and carried with the amendment becoming the substantive motion. The Mayor then put the substantive motion, which reads:
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
313 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr J Brown
That Council advise the applicant that a Building Application is to be lodged providing scaled drawings of each of the buildings for which retrospective planning approval has been granted and of the relocated Outbuilding E, to the satisfaction of the Manager Building Services, with such application to be lodged, along with the relevant application fees, with the City within 60 days of this meeting.
CARRIED 10/0
FOR: Cr B Wiffen, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr C Fernandez,
Cr W Barrett, Cr P Morris, Cr T Brown, Cr R Mitchell, and Cr O Searle.
AGAINST: Nil.
Additional Motion
During debate Cr R Hoffman moved the following additional motion to the staff recommendations:
“That the number of birds housed on the property be limited to the extent that the noise generated does not exceed the Environmental Protection (noise abatement regulations).”
Cr R Hoffman provided the following reason for the motion:
“Key issue of concern is the noise generated from the keeping of these birds on the property”.
Cr B Wiffen seconded Cr R Hoffman’s additional motion.
The Mayor then put the staff recommendations which read:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 of 4) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 314 Moved Cr PM Morris Seconded Cr R Mitchell
That Council grant retrospective approval for seven outbuildings with an aggregate floor area of 451m² at 49 (Lot 100) Douglas Road, Martin, identified as Outbuildings A, B, C, F, G, J and K as contained in Attachment A, subject to the following conditions:
1. A landscaping plan for the development site is to be submitted in accordance with the City’s development landscaping policy and approved by the City’s Technical Landscape Officer. The plan is to show how all outbuildings are to be screened from the view of Lot 101 Douglas Road. Such Landscaping is to be installed within 3 months of the date of this approval and maintained by the owner/occupier to the satisfaction of the City’s Landscape Technical Officer.
2. The submission of a lighting plan for the subject property, which is to be approved by the City’s Manager of Technical Services, prior to the issue of a Building Licence.
3. The approved outbuildings are not to be used for habitation, commercial or industrial purposes.
4. Stormwater drainage from the outbuildings is to be contained on site.
5. A Demolition Licence is to be obtained for the removal of the existing unauthorised outbuilding in the general location of Outbuilding D as contained in Attachment A to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager Building Services.
CARRIED 10/0
FOR: Cr B Wiffen, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr C Fernandez,
Cr W Barrett, Cr P Morris, Cr T Brown, Cr R Mitchell, and Cr O Searle.
AGAINST: Nil.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (2 of 4) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 315 Moved Cr PM Morris Seconded Cr R Mitchell
That Council refuse to grant approval to the proposed outbuilding of 256m2 depicted in the location of Outbuilding D on the plan contained in Attachment A at 49 (Lot 100) Douglas Road, Martin and as submitted in revised plans received on 25 May 2009, for the following reasons:
3. The proposed floor area of 256m² would result in an aggregate outbuilding floor area on the property of 885m², which is considered to be excessive within the Special Rural zone.
4. The proposed outbuilding is proposed to be used for the keeping of birds, but has not been included within the noise assessment conducted on the property. Given that the proposed outbuilding is closer to the dwelling on the adjacent Lot 101 Douglas Road than the existing aviary, which has been identified as requiring relocation or remediation measures to reduce noise impacts, it is considered that the proposed outbuilding has potential to
adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property
CARRIED 10/0
FOR: Cr B Wiffen, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr C Fernandez, Cr W Barrett, Cr P Morris, Cr T Brown, Cr R Mitchell, and Cr O Searle.
AGAINST: Nil.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION (3 of 4) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 316 Moved Cr PM Morris Seconded Cr R Mitchell
That Council refuse to grant retrospective approval to the 10m2 outbuilding identified as Outbuilding E on the plan contained in Attachment A at 49 (Lot 100) Douglas Road, Martin and require the following actions to be undertaken within 90 days:
1. Relocate the outbuilding to the north-western side of the subject property to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.
2. The outbuilding to be reorientated so that only its enclosed sides are facing south.
3. The outbuilding is to be enclosed with Colorbond cladding on two sides and the roof.
4. The outbuilding is to be insulated to the satisfaction of the Manager Health Services.
CARRIED 10/0
FOR: Cr B Wiffen, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr C Fernandez, Cr W Barrett, Cr P Morris, Cr T Brown, Cr R Mitchell, and Cr O Searle.
AGAINST: Nil.
The Mayor then put Cr R Hoffman’s additional motion, which reads:
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
317 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr B Wiffen
That the number of birds housed on the property be limited to the extent that the noise generated does not exceed the Environmental Protection (noise abatement regulations).
CARRIED 10/0
FOR: Cr B Wiffen, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr C Fernandez,
Cr W Barrett, Cr P Morris, Cr T Brown, Cr R Mitchell, and Cr O Searle.
AGAINST: Nil.
8:54 pm - Cr D Griffiths returned to the meeting.
The Mayor, upon the return of Cr D Griffiths to the meeting, advised that Council had endorsed the staff recommendations as contained in the Report.
8:55pm – Cr B Wiffen left the meeting.
8:56 pm - Cr B Wiffen returned to the meeting.
He was a mascot for the plight of Victorian animals!
Sam's demise represents the plight of koalas and many native species. The story is the same - loss of habitat, feral plants and animals, urban development, poisons, stress, disease and road kill. Our governments give scant recognition to indigenous Australian species, and wildlife are "collateral damage" of development and "progress", not significant enough casualties to really make an impact on the economy and growth! Without continuous wildlife corridors, their genetic diversity and survival cannot be assured.
At least Sam became famous, and had loving care. He was a mascot for the plight of Victorian animals, and with another heavy fire season ahead, how safe will the rest of the koalas and other native animals be?