Date: 19/09/2021 01:42:00
From: dv
ID: 1792172
Subject: Recovery plans to be scrapped

Coalition proposes to scrap recovery plans for 200 endangered species and habitats

Environment groups decry protection ‘downgrade’ that would affect Tasmanian devil, whale shark and Kangaroo Island glossy-black cockatoo

The Morrison government has proposed scrapping recovery plans for almost 200 endangered species and habitats including the Tasmanian devil, the whale shark and the endangered glossy-black cockatoo populations on Kangaroo Island, one of the worst-affected areas in the 2019-20 bushfires.

Environment groups have decried the move as a backward step less than 12 months after a statutory review of Australia’s national environmental laws found successive governments had failed to protect the country’s unique wildlife.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/18/coalition-plans-to-scrap-recovery-plans-for-200-endangered-species-and-habitats

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 02:27:15
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1792174
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

dv said:


Coalition proposes to scrap recovery plans for 200 endangered species and habitats

Environment groups decry protection ‘downgrade’ that would affect Tasmanian devil, whale shark and Kangaroo Island glossy-black cockatoo

The Morrison government has proposed scrapping recovery plans for almost 200 endangered species and habitats including the Tasmanian devil, the whale shark and the endangered glossy-black cockatoo populations on Kangaroo Island, one of the worst-affected areas in the 2019-20 bushfires.

Environment groups have decried the move as a backward step less than 12 months after a statutory review of Australia’s national environmental laws found successive governments had failed to protect the country’s unique wildlife.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/18/coalition-plans-to-scrap-recovery-plans-for-200-endangered-species-and-habitats

As compensation there will be more money for clean coal, we must look at the bigger picture.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 03:25:06
From: SCIENCE
ID: 1792175
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

thank goodness, needed to find a saving somewhere for the Economy Must Grow, and Australia can’t afford to blow all that on a whole new submarine programme

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:01:53
From: sarahs mum
ID: 1792186
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

nnn.
grrr.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:11:51
From: Michael V
ID: 1792188
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

sarahs mum said:


nnn.
grrr.

How else are they going to pay for their new Uranium-filled under-sea-boats?

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:13:18
From: captain_spalding
ID: 1792189
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

Michael V said:


sarahs mum said:

nnn.
grrr.

How else are they going to pay for their new Uranium-filled under-sea-boats?

What’s the gas-led recovery costing us?

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:17:23
From: Michael V
ID: 1792190
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

captain_spalding said:


Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

nnn.
grrr.

How else are they going to pay for their new Uranium-filled under-sea-boats?

What’s the gas-led recovery costing us?

Probably lots, but I don’t rightly know.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:26:18
From: roughbarked
ID: 1792193
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

Michael V said:


captain_spalding said:

Michael V said:

How else are they going to pay for their new Uranium-filled under-sea-boats?

What’s the gas-led recovery costing us?

Probably lots, but I don’t rightly know.

It is costing more than it gives back.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:33:44
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1792205
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

The Coalition are being environmentally criminal.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:34:45
From: captain_spalding
ID: 1792207
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

Tau.Neutrino said:


The Coalition are being environmentally criminal.

It’s what they do.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:36:19
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1792208
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

captain_spalding said:


Tau.Neutrino said:

The Coalition are being environmentally criminal.

It’s what they do.

They are destroying the future as well.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:40:34
From: captain_spalding
ID: 1792213
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

Tau.Neutrino said:


captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Coalition are being environmentally criminal.

It’s what they do.

They are destroying the future as well.

That’s the other thing that they do.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:41:32
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1792214
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

Tau.Neutrino said:


captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Coalition are being environmentally criminal.

It’s what they do.

They are destroying the future as well.

Children are witnessing their future being taken away.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:43:20
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1792215
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

captain_spalding said:


Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

It’s what they do.

They are destroying the future as well.

That’s the other thing that they do.

They have very poor empathy for the future.

Its depressing to to see this happen when we have the capability to do it.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:46:53
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1792216
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

They appear not to understand the need for biodiversity, or the need for natural forest floors.

Self interested in money and no regard for other species.

Destroy habitats, grab resources, leave it all barren.

Mindless scumbags.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:49:34
From: captain_spalding
ID: 1792218
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

Tau.Neutrino said:

They have very poor empathy for the future.

Its depressing to to see this happen when we have the capability to do it.

I do wonder about just how many of us would be able to resist falling into the same mercenary trap as do so many of our elected representatives.

If we were actually presented with the opportunity to rake in the dollars that they do, by various direct, indirect, immediate, or promised means (and it is often serious money), would none of us succumb to the lure of immediate gain over the warm fuzzies derived from ensuring our grandchildren have some hope?

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:55:02
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1792220
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

captain_spalding said:


Tau.Neutrino said:

They have very poor empathy for the future.

Its depressing to to see this happen when we have the capability to do it.

I do wonder about just how many of us would be able to resist falling into the same mercenary trap as do so many of our elected representatives.

If we were actually presented with the opportunity to rake in the dollars that they do, by various direct, indirect, immediate, or promised means (and it is often serious money), would none of us succumb to the lure of immediate gain over the warm fuzzies derived from ensuring our grandchildren have some hope?

Do you have some examples of this direct personal gain of which you speak?

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:55:58
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1792221
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

captain_spalding said:


Tau.Neutrino said:

They have very poor empathy for the future.

Its depressing to to see this happen when we have the capability to do it.

I do wonder about just how many of us would be able to resist falling into the same mercenary trap as do so many of our elected representatives.

If we were actually presented with the opportunity to rake in the dollars that they do, by various direct, indirect, immediate, or promised means (and it is often serious money), would none of us succumb to the lure of immediate gain over the warm fuzzies derived from ensuring our grandchildren have some hope?

Take away their parliamentary privileges and protections, make them accountable for their actions.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 08:58:44
From: Michael V
ID: 1792222
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

captain_spalding said:


Tau.Neutrino said:

They have very poor empathy for the future.

Its depressing to to see this happen when we have the capability to do it.

I do wonder about just how many of us would be able to resist falling into the same mercenary trap as do so many of our elected representatives.

If we were actually presented with the opportunity to rake in the dollars that they do, by various direct, indirect, immediate, or promised means (and it is often serious money), would none of us succumb to the lure of immediate gain over the warm fuzzies derived from ensuring our grandchildren have some hope?

I fell for it. I worked for Big Coal for nearly 2 years. I saved a lot of money to ensure my future was not going to be uncomfortably difficult.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 09:01:00
From: roughbarked
ID: 1792223
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

captain_spalding said:


Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

It’s what they do.

They are destroying the future as well.

That’s the other thing that they do.

The two things they do do.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 09:04:57
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1792225
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

Michael V said:


captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

They have very poor empathy for the future.

Its depressing to to see this happen when we have the capability to do it.

I do wonder about just how many of us would be able to resist falling into the same mercenary trap as do so many of our elected representatives.

If we were actually presented with the opportunity to rake in the dollars that they do, by various direct, indirect, immediate, or promised means (and it is often serious money), would none of us succumb to the lure of immediate gain over the warm fuzzies derived from ensuring our grandchildren have some hope?

I fell for it. I worked for Big Coal for nearly 2 years. I saved a lot of money to ensure my future was not going to be uncomfortably difficult.

Getting a good salary for doing your job in providing a material that is currently essential for the well-being of everyone in the country is very different from accepting bribes to implement dodgy policies for the future, which is what I presume Cap’n S is on about.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 09:05:39
From: sarahs mum
ID: 1792226
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

The Rev Dodgson said:


captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

They have very poor empathy for the future.

Its depressing to to see this happen when we have the capability to do it.

I do wonder about just how many of us would be able to resist falling into the same mercenary trap as do so many of our elected representatives.

If we were actually presented with the opportunity to rake in the dollars that they do, by various direct, indirect, immediate, or promised means (and it is often serious money), would none of us succumb to the lure of immediate gain over the warm fuzzies derived from ensuring our grandchildren have some hope?

Do you have some examples of this direct personal gain of which you speak?

With the reelection of the government in 2016, he became the Minister for Defence Industry. Upon the installment of the First Morrison Ministry in August 2018, he became the Minister for Defence.

Pyne retired from politics at the 2019 Australian federal election. In June 2019, he was appointed as an industry professor at the University of South Australia. In the same month Pyne started a new defence industry consulting job, prompting a Senate investigation into a potential breach of Ministerial Standards.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 09:06:50
From: captain_spalding
ID: 1792228
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

The Rev Dodgson said:


captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

They have very poor empathy for the future.

Its depressing to to see this happen when we have the capability to do it.

I do wonder about just how many of us would be able to resist falling into the same mercenary trap as do so many of our elected representatives.

If we were actually presented with the opportunity to rake in the dollars that they do, by various direct, indirect, immediate, or promised means (and it is often serious money), would none of us succumb to the lure of immediate gain over the warm fuzzies derived from ensuring our grandchildren have some hope?

Do you have some examples of this direct personal gain of which you speak?

https://berwicknews.starcommunity.com.au/news/2020-11-17/mps-job-bribe-denied/

https://www.panorama.am/en/news/2016/01/25/Azerbaijan-Australian-MP/1517300

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 09:07:47
From: dv
ID: 1792229
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

Whom is this kind of policy meant to appeal to?

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 09:08:44
From: sarahs mum
ID: 1792230
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

dv said:


Whom is this kind of policy meant to appeal to?

developers.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 09:09:20
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1792231
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

Tau.Neutrino said:


Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

It’s what they do.

They are destroying the future as well.

Children are witnessing their future being taken away.

What happened to all the bushfire sympathy, did it evaporate?

I suppose when there is another catastrophic bushfire they will say lets do something about it, then withdraw funding later.

The Coalition are not very good with ethics and logic.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 09:17:19
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1792232
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

People destroying the future need to be jailed.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 09:20:06
From: roughbarked
ID: 1792234
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

dv said:


Whom is this kind of policy meant to appeal to?

I thought you’d be able to tell me that. IHNFI.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 09:20:38
From: roughbarked
ID: 1792235
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

Tau.Neutrino said:


People destroying the future need to be jailed.

Drawn and quartered before they hang the pieces up.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 09:46:21
From: Michael V
ID: 1792244
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

The Rev Dodgson said:


Michael V said:

captain_spalding said:

I do wonder about just how many of us would be able to resist falling into the same mercenary trap as do so many of our elected representatives.

If we were actually presented with the opportunity to rake in the dollars that they do, by various direct, indirect, immediate, or promised means (and it is often serious money), would none of us succumb to the lure of immediate gain over the warm fuzzies derived from ensuring our grandchildren have some hope?

I fell for it. I worked for Big Coal for nearly 2 years. I saved a lot of money to ensure my future was not going to be uncomfortably difficult.

Getting a good salary for doing your job in providing a material that is currently essential for the well-being of everyone in the country is very different from accepting bribes to implement dodgy policies for the future, which is what I presume Cap’n S is on about.

If I had stuck to my principles, I shouldn’t have taken that work.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 09:49:52
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1792247
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

dv said:


Coalition proposes to scrap recovery plans for 200 endangered species and habitats

Environment groups decry protection ‘downgrade’ that would affect Tasmanian devil, whale shark and Kangaroo Island glossy-black cockatoo

The Morrison government has proposed scrapping recovery plans for almost 200 endangered species and habitats including the Tasmanian devil, the whale shark and the endangered glossy-black cockatoo populations on Kangaroo Island, one of the worst-affected areas in the 2019-20 bushfires.

Environment groups have decried the move as a backward step less than 12 months after a statutory review of Australia’s national environmental laws found successive governments had failed to protect the country’s unique wildlife.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/18/coalition-plans-to-scrap-recovery-plans-for-200-endangered-species-and-habitats

I’ve been feeling lately that “endangered” has been overused. Well, not so much overused as overemphasised.
No, I take that back, overused. No, I take that back, in need of urgent protection.
Wait on … is the iucn level on these 200 species being misquoted?
“Endangered species” and “threatened species” are not synomyms on the iucn list, so saying “advises it on endangered wildlife, to review recovery plans for 914 threatened species” muddies rather than clarifies the issue.

I’m feeling very decisive today :-(

(Take a step back. Take a deep breath). Which 200 species?

Have to go back to the original source, which would have to be latest report of the Threatened species scientific committee (TSSC).
Is this on the web?

Is this the list? It includes both plants and animals. https://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-tmp/publiclistchanges.246a61466cc975d4f63e.html

Perhaps that isn’t the list, because some items on the list date back to the year 2001. Long before Morrison can be blamed. Only 16 sepcies were removed from specific protection while Morrison was Prime Minister. Nup, this must be the list, because it has close on 200 species. So don’t blame Morrison.

Each item on the list has a specific reason why it was excluded from protection included as an attached document.

I note that some species are removed from the threatened list in need of protection because they’re extinct. That’s a valid reason.

I see that one “critically endangered” species has been taken off the protection list. Because “suggesting a different genetic composition during each hybridisation event … As Argentipallium spiceri is a hybrid, it does not meet the definition of a species under
section 528 of the EPBC Act. Therefore, the taxon is not eligible for listing under the EPBC Act.” The result of multiple hybridisation events in different locations, no not at risk.

Let’s choose something else and look at the reason.

The most recent three were excluded from protection on 11 Dec 2020.

Litoria nannotis (Waterfall Frog, Torrent Tree Frog). “The Waterfall Frog occupies extensive habitat within protected areas in Queensland (Wet
Tropics World Heritage Area), the population appears to be relatively stable and has been found to be present in many upland streams from which it had previously disappeared.” In other words, the population is stable or growing and is independently protected by residing within existing protected habitat so doesn’t need additional species-specific protection.

Litoria rheocola (Common Mistfrog). ditto.

Philotheca sporadica (Kogan Waxflower). “The distribution area covers several state forests, including Dalby State Forest, Braemar State Forest, Vickery State Forest and large parts of Kumbarilla State Forest … The distribution of this species overlaps with (two regions already protected)” There’s a lot more in this document https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/64944-listing-advice-11122020.pdf including response to fire, risk from habitat loss, grazing and weeds. “An initial total population estimate of 64 000 (in 1995)” has increased by about another 63,000 new individuals (in 2020). “population estimates are becoming more accurate. This is consistent with records held by the Atlas of Living Australia, which indicate an increase in records in the last three decades.” Fair enough.

Conclusion. The Guardian article looks like mistimed grandstanding by the Greens. Mistimed because this was news in Dec 2020. Always go back to the original sources, mollwollfumble.

Reply Quote

Date: 19/09/2021 20:13:59
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1792553
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

mollwollfumble said:


dv said:

Coalition proposes to scrap recovery plans for 200 endangered species and habitats

Environment groups decry protection ‘downgrade’ that would affect Tasmanian devil, whale shark and Kangaroo Island glossy-black cockatoo

The Morrison government has proposed scrapping recovery plans for almost 200 endangered species and habitats including the Tasmanian devil, the whale shark and the endangered glossy-black cockatoo populations on Kangaroo Island, one of the worst-affected areas in the 2019-20 bushfires.

Environment groups have decried the move as a backward step less than 12 months after a statutory review of Australia’s national environmental laws found successive governments had failed to protect the country’s unique wildlife.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/18/coalition-plans-to-scrap-recovery-plans-for-200-endangered-species-and-habitats

I’ve been feeling lately that “endangered” has been overused. Well, not so much overused as overemphasised.
No, I take that back, overused. No, I take that back, in need of urgent protection.
Wait on … is the iucn level on these 200 species being misquoted?
“Endangered species” and “threatened species” are not synomyms on the iucn list, so saying “advises it on endangered wildlife, to review recovery plans for 914 threatened species” muddies rather than clarifies the issue.

I’m feeling very decisive today :-(

(Take a step back. Take a deep breath). Which 200 species?

Have to go back to the original source, which would have to be latest report of the Threatened species scientific committee (TSSC).
Is this on the web?

Is this the list? It includes both plants and animals. https://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-tmp/publiclistchanges.246a61466cc975d4f63e.html

Perhaps that isn’t the list, because some items on the list date back to the year 2001. Long before Morrison can be blamed. Only 16 sepcies were removed from specific protection while Morrison was Prime Minister. Nup, this must be the list, because it has close on 200 species. So don’t blame Morrison.

Each item on the list has a specific reason why it was excluded from protection included as an attached document.

I note that some species are removed from the threatened list in need of protection because they’re extinct. That’s a valid reason.

I see that one “critically endangered” species has been taken off the protection list. Because “suggesting a different genetic composition during each hybridisation event … As Argentipallium spiceri is a hybrid, it does not meet the definition of a species under
section 528 of the EPBC Act. Therefore, the taxon is not eligible for listing under the EPBC Act.” The result of multiple hybridisation events in different locations, no not at risk.

Let’s choose something else and look at the reason.

The most recent three were excluded from protection on 11 Dec 2020.

Litoria nannotis (Waterfall Frog, Torrent Tree Frog). “The Waterfall Frog occupies extensive habitat within protected areas in Queensland (Wet
Tropics World Heritage Area), the population appears to be relatively stable and has been found to be present in many upland streams from which it had previously disappeared.” In other words, the population is stable or growing and is independently protected by residing within existing protected habitat so doesn’t need additional species-specific protection.

Litoria rheocola (Common Mistfrog). ditto.

Philotheca sporadica (Kogan Waxflower). “The distribution area covers several state forests, including Dalby State Forest, Braemar State Forest, Vickery State Forest and large parts of Kumbarilla State Forest … The distribution of this species overlaps with (two regions already protected)” There’s a lot more in this document https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/64944-listing-advice-11122020.pdf including response to fire, risk from habitat loss, grazing and weeds. “An initial total population estimate of 64 000 (in 1995)” has increased by about another 63,000 new individuals (in 2020). “population estimates are becoming more accurate. This is consistent with records held by the Atlas of Living Australia, which indicate an increase in records in the last three decades.” Fair enough.

Conclusion. The Guardian article looks like mistimed grandstanding by the Greens. Mistimed because this was news in Dec 2020. Always go back to the original sources, mollwollfumble.

Your conclusion is not correct and only deals with information detailed in;
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/threatened-species-strategy-2015-2020

The Guardian article is not old news, but deals with information detailed in:
https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/threatened-species-strategy-2021-2031

Reply Quote

Date: 20/09/2021 14:16:34
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1792800
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

PermeateFree said:


Your conclusion is not correct and only deals with information detailed in;
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/threatened-species-strategy-2015-2020

The Guardian article is not old news, but deals with information detailed in:
https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/threatened-species-strategy-2021-2031

Thank you for the correction. :-)

Reply Quote

Date: 21/09/2021 05:20:07
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1793082
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

mollwollfumble said:


PermeateFree said:

Your conclusion is not correct and only deals with information detailed in;
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/threatened-species-strategy-2015-2020

The Guardian article is not old news, but deals with information detailed in:
https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/threatened-species-strategy-2021-2031

Thank you for the correction. :-)

You’re right, the new plan is a worry.

First of all, there is a shift away from an independent non-political scientific panel towards a ‘whoever shouts loudest’ style of community involvement. There was a lot of community involvement in the previous system, but it was managed community involvement, one species at a time in an orderly sequence.

Secondly, although I applaud the focus on protecting ecological habitats, this does open up the possibility of habitat restriction for endangered species, ie. more allocation of land outside protected habitats available for human use.

On the positive side, the enlargement of the number of species covered is good. But does it go far enough? (looks at statement in report) Yes, I think it does.

The one dominant negative from climate change is the increase in the number of bushfires, we need to prepare for a massive increase in the number of bushfires in the Eastern states. Bushfire vulnerability was considered carefully under the old scheme. Under the new scheme, “Many of our native plants, animals and ecosystems are adapted to fire, and need fire at some stage in their life cycles to survive and flourish. Changes in fire regimes, including to frequency, timing and intensity of fires or in some cases the exclusion of fire, place many species and ecological communities at risk”. The problem here is that … well, there are at least three separate problems here. It is far from a simple case of excluding fires and timing fires, or assuming that the pre-European fire routine is good.

Reply Quote

Date: 21/09/2021 09:17:44
From: roughbarked
ID: 1793141
Subject: re: Recovery plans to be scrapped

mollwollfumble said:


mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Your conclusion is not correct and only deals with information detailed in;
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/threatened-species-strategy-2015-2020

The Guardian article is not old news, but deals with information detailed in:
https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/threatened-species-strategy-2021-2031

Thank you for the correction. :-)

You’re right, the new plan is a worry.

First of all, there is a shift away from an independent non-political scientific panel towards a ‘whoever shouts loudest’ style of community involvement. There was a lot of community involvement in the previous system, but it was managed community involvement, one species at a time in an orderly sequence.

Secondly, although I applaud the focus on protecting ecological habitats, this does open up the possibility of habitat restriction for endangered species, ie. more allocation of land outside protected habitats available for human use.

On the positive side, the enlargement of the number of species covered is good. But does it go far enough? (looks at statement in report) Yes, I think it does.

The one dominant negative from climate change is the increase in the number of bushfires, we need to prepare for a massive increase in the number of bushfires in the Eastern states. Bushfire vulnerability was considered carefully under the old scheme. Under the new scheme, “Many of our native plants, animals and ecosystems are adapted to fire, and need fire at some stage in their life cycles to survive and flourish. Changes in fire regimes, including to frequency, timing and intensity of fires or in some cases the exclusion of fire, place many species and ecological communities at risk”. The problem here is that … well, there are at least three separate problems here. It is far from a simple case of excluding fires and timing fires, or assuming that the pre-European fire routine is good.

Note that the new plan has less pages than the older one. To be brief.

Reply Quote