Parks to pay their way, says review

[maddog]

Unions have the stomach to fight for Botanic Gardens

Unions NSW Secretary Mark Lennon has confirmed he has spoken to former NSW Premier and Foreign Minister Bob Carr about the prospect of green bans on the proposed development of the Botanic Gardens.

Mr Lennon said it was vital that the Botanic Gardens were protected.

“Sydney’s Botanic Gardens are among the world’s great public gardens and it is vital they are protected for all Sydneysiders to enjoy,” Mr Lennon said.

“In recent days I have spoken to Bob Carr about how the current plan would significantly damage the beauty and utility of the Gardens.

“I assured Mr Carr the NSW union movement would be flexing every muscle – including our convex abs and ill-defined obliques – to ensure the Botanic Gardens remain an egalitarian space for all the people of NSW to enjoy.”

Mr Lennon said he would be seeking meetings with affiliate unions and green bans legend Jack Mundey in the coming days about the prospect of taking action over the proposed development.

http://www.unionsnsw.org.au/general-new ... ns-lennon/

[Gadgetgeek]

I decided to do a bit of reading on how Canada's national parks are funded. Couldn't find a hard number, but In general they are heavily fee supported.
Banff is commercially supported for sure, between the ski hills, glacier tours and the town. Sure there are some big resorts, some might find that having a castle on the edge of Lake Louise to be a bit of an eyesore on such a beautiful lake. But If it wasn't there, there is almost no chance that industrial development wouldn't have fully taken over the rocky mountains. All of the parks charge an entry fee, and annual passes can be bought for all parks. overnight stay fees are based on the amenities of the site, from cheap to lux. Or stay in the hotel, its up to you. The trade off for the development is that it costs a few bucks to get in, since lots of folks are visiting. Less traveled parks get a helping hand from the busy ones. Trails get maintained regardless of use, and you can usually find a decent place to park your car for a few nights instead of leaving it on the side of a random highway.
Its not a perfect system, and I guess I don't think about it much since its always been that way, but its not that scary. I'll take a 5 star resort over a strip mine any day of the week.

[Hallu]

Yeah that's one of the main issues today : both resorts and exploitation of natural ressources are damaging to the environment, but the former is certainly preferable, especially if it means preventing the latter... Australia actually "suffers" from not having enough ecological disasters : because those disasters unite people against the nature-destroying industry, it creates powerful political groups, and it's a constant reminder that it should never happen again. The US had this with the damming of the Hetchy Hetchy valley, which led to a strong "hands off our parks" policy. Technically, Australia has this already too (the Ranger mine in Kakadu, the appalling state of the GBR), but it never got the mediatic attention it deserved...

[maddog]

Lake Pedder was our Hetchy Hetchy Hallu. Are resorts preferable to the extraction of natural resources because they are compatible with disney environmentalism?

http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/ ... fault.aspx

http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/ ... fault.aspx

[Gadgetgeek]

Australia has also had a different approach in general. There was never the same mass protests in Canada over logging. Sure there were some, and lots of people going to schools to tell kids why it was bad (funnier when they came to my school, farming community that's only other industry was logging) but by then most of the wood being cut was replant anyway. Now the bark pine beetle is doing far more damage than the clearcuts in the 70s and 80s (the school PSAs got to my school a decade late)
A few people cry about mining in Alberta, but thats ok, because they can move to BC and hug trees in the Vancouver suburbs. As long as the federal government can say that Canada can be oil independent, no one cares about northern alberta. Heck, as long as there is money to be made, its kinda hard to find anyone thats really in opposition to mining. We all know its bad, we all know the Keystone pipeline is going to be a massive disaster, but no one can get that worked up on it. Canada is one eco disaster after another, and yet most people would probably think the exxon valdez was our worst one. (we trash Americans for poor geography, but I think most Canadians forget that Alaska owns that coast)
At least in Australia people seem to actually protest. They still get ignored, but at least they try. The voices have to be heard, as much as the current government doesn't like it, hopefully the next one will get it.
Canada's one biggest enviro protest was the cod fishermen demanding the feds defend the grand-banks fishing zone from foreign boats in the off season, but that was too hard. So no more fish.
I don't know the solution, but even disney ecology is better than none. I'd rather a park with a resort to a zoo. And I worked in Mordor, anything is preferable to that mess. prepping to mine oil at a loss, so that that its profitable at $200 a barrel? That area will never be recovered. Either the mining companies will keep pulling oil out to the bitter end and walk away, or if things change and we stop using oil, they will drop tools the moment the money stops.

[Hallu]

Lake Pedder was our Hetchy Hetchy Hallu. Are resorts preferable to the extraction of natural resources because they are compatible with disney environmentalism?

http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/ ... fault.aspx

http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/ ... fault.aspx

Lake Pedder is a bit different, as it was equivalent to Hetchy Hetchy but only for Tasmanians. National uproar is very rare in Australia, it's hard to mobilize such a vast and sparsely populated countr, because they lack strong organizations such as the Sierra club or the National Geographic society. I'm not including Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd because although they're popular, they're more of an activist group. If you see the history of NPs in the US, you also realize that billionaires such as John D. Rockefeller Jr or Stephen Mather made a huge contribution, the former buying land and donating it for conservation, the latter basically building most of the sealed roads in American NPs and creating the "NP culture" inside Americans' hearts. And while donations by rich businessmen are frequent in Australia, they never put themselves forward to direct a strong conservation movement. While these American biillionaires thought "this country made me rich, now it's time to give back and preserve some of it", the Australian billionaires are more like "no I refuse to admit I'm destroying the environment, so I don't see why I should do anything about conservation". Acceptance of the damage we do is the first step toward conservation, and the Australian political leadership doesn't even have that.

[maddog]

The choice between mining and property development within parks is in reality a false dichotomy, one or the other is not an inevitable choice. But to continue with the theme, natural areas recover from mining or forestry as the resource is depleted and extraction ceases (take the blue mountains as an example - natural beauty returns over time). ERA's uranium mining in Kakadu did not create but found value in 'sickness country'. Forestry in the long-term is almost benign and public access is maintained. In contrast land alienated as freehold or subject to long term lease ensures there will never be recovery - it is lost forever. Much of the east coast of Australia, the Gold Coast as just one example, urban sprawl and tacky development (how much littoral rainforest is left?). What of the pollution, permanent destruction of habitat, the disturbance and activation of acid sulphate soils from ill-considered development with subsequent consequences (e.g. fish kills)? A hideous sameness, on a scale unrivalled by the extraction of natural resources.

It is true that Australia lacks the tradition of corporate philanthropy of the United States. But environmentalism in Tasmania, from Lake Pedder to the demise of Gunns, has not been driven by the 'grass-roots' desire of Tasmanians, but from the blinkered view of mainlanders imposing political leadership over the democratic decisions of local communities. To mainlanders, Tasmania is holiday island, a disney fantasy, maintained to satisfy the consciences of people who do not live with reality.

Cheers.

[Hallu]

Are you Tony Abbott's disciple ? "Forestry is almost benign" "natural areas recover from mining or forestry", what a load of nonsense... The "look it's just like before" argument is just pathetic nowadays, a healthy ecosystem isn't evaluated by how nice the place looks from an helicopter...

[wayno]

you want to see how excruciatingly slowly forests regenerate from deforestation in colder climates.
in alpine environments. deforestation can mean the death knell for a forest... the trees rely on mutually protecting each other from the elements to stand a chance of surviving, if you wipe out areas of forests the weather conditions on the open ground can be too severe for trees to recover... where there are frosts. sapplings often can't survive long enough to develop to a stage where they can survive winters...
massive areas of forest were removed from nz that have never been able to grow back and are now replaced by tussock grass.

[doogs]

But environmentalism in Tasmania, from Lake Pedder to the demise of Gunns, has not been driven by the 'grass-roots' desire of Tasmanians, but from the blinkered view of mainlanders imposing political leadership over the democratic decisions of local communities. To mainlanders, Tasmania is holiday island, a disney fantasy, maintained to satisfy the consciences of people who do not live with reality.

Environmentalism in Tasmania, in my opinion, was galvanised after the creation of the Lake Pedder impoundment. This groundswell of support for the movement eventually led to the scrapping of the Franklin Dam project, which Tasmanians were overwhelmingly against by then. Yes it was the Federal government who ultimately stopped the project but it was the local 'Tasmanians' who didn't want it. Gunns where an arrogant bunch of pricks who thought they could bully everyone who got in their way to get what they wanted. It worked for years. With the pulp mill they kept on and on and on with this strategy which led to their ultimate demise. They *&%$#! themselves up. Pure and simple. They can't blame anyone else.

To Tasmanians, the mainland is becoming a wasteland which is being pillaged for short term profits without any foresight to future industries when these resources run out. Then the mainlanders treat Tasmania as a large retirement village after whingeing for their working life about how it sucks that 'their' state has had to support Tasmania

If you want to be realistic then think about future industries rather than sticking to the same old crap that we all know is ruining our environment but we do nothing about to change. We need to cherish our national parks as we set them up for their protection, gave them a legal right to be protected and now we are trying to find ways of changing their rights.

[maddog]

Hallu,

When compared to the damage caused by tourism forestry is almost benign. And over time, natural areas do recover from disturbance as is illustrated below.

forest regeneration.jpg (114.84 KiB) Viewed 20111 times

Wayno,

If what you say is correct we have a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. How did the trees get there in the first place?

Doogs,

On the state of the mainland, we have a mixed economy, and contrary to reports few real problems. Things just keep getting better. On the State of the Environment in NSW the EPA reports, amongst other things, cleaner air and water.

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/soe/soe2012/summary.htm

On the protection of National Parks we are in complete agreement, but tourism is no panacea for the ills of a reservation life. Even those in a rush to replace the wealth of industry with the poverty of a service economy should pause to consider the impact of new development on ecosystems. Consider, for a moment, the possible impact of pharmaceuticals introduced to a sewage system overwhelmed with tourists and pensioners:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... treatment/

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-streams-st ... ution.html

On Gunns, from all reports an unpleasant corporate culture. It was Geoff Cousins that achieved what basket weavers could not. But ultimately it was not Mr Cousins that paid the price for the (temporary) demise of this industry.

http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/m ... 1vtwg.html

Cheers.

[wayno]

the trees may hae established themselves originally when the climate was warmer and there was enough rainfall to support the start of a forest... you have a large forest developing at lower levels, even in a cold environment it can creep up a slope providing shelter for sapplings at the edge of teh forest. it can take hundreds of years for the forest to develop a canopy to higher levels... you wipe out the forest , it has to start all over again. from scratch creeping back into the colder climate areas.... but maybe the climate has changed now, its drier or colder and removing the forest makes it harder for the forest to reestablish again, soil dries out too much... too many frosts .... it cant develop as it once did

[Gadgetgeek]

I'm not a forestry expert. I'm not a mining expert, or a resort expert. But why is it a question of resource extraction in parks. sure there is some sort term gain, but the long term benefit of getting more people used to having a wilderness to visit should be better for everyone long term. As for jobs, yes in the short term, there may be trouble, but the timber cutter is an endangered species as it is. Why base an industry on having a workforce from the 50s when a few people can make a reasonable living doing the same job with modern methods? I would think it would be in the timber industries best benefit to keep the average joe as far away as possible, let them have untouched wilderness to play in and clear-cut planted timber to their hearts content. Personally I think Australia made a mistake letting resource extraction have a hand in how hot to run the economy, Alberta learned it the hard way too, one bad season and a drop in the price of oil caused a local credit crisis as lots of loans were defaulted on. At one stage F350 trucks were so cheap you could walk in with cash and take away not only a year old truck with nothing on the clock, but a new Focus as well. It did massive damage to the economy, and those on the wrong end of things still haven't recovered. The miners had all the money, what no one realized was that the miners were spending money they didn't have, so in actual fact there was no trickle-down. And to top it off, all the profits left along with the oil, it kinda burned everyone.

As for urban sprawl. I don't like it either, but people have to live somewhere, and thats kinda the most hospitable part of this country, just like how most of canada is huddled up on the warm border.

[Hallu]

Personally I think Australia made a mistake letting resource extraction have a hand in how hot to run the economy,

That we can agree on. Australia has no long term economy plan, they just hope that China and India will need as much coal and ore as they do now for the decades to come. But if suddenly the Chinese wake up and realize they have enough money to invest in a 50% nuclear/50% renewable energies plan, abandon coal, and save millions of lives from respitory diseases (which is possible given the growing uproar from the Chinese workers regarding those deaths), good old Australia is screwed. The solution is to invest in tourism, targetted as those newly travelling Chinese. The problem is, the Chinese aren't backpackers at all. They've just started travelling en masse, they do mainly sightseeing, nice hotels, food, wine, cute animals easy to see, photo ops and so on. Bushwalking and extreme sports isn't exactly their thing (yet), that's why Australian tourism policy leans towards resorts, sightseeing tours and nice restaurants. The European or American tourist that pays only for the plane tickets and for renting a car isn't their number 1 priority, the only way to suck more money from that guy is to increase park fees, which they're doing.

[maddog]

G'day Gadgetgeek,

This issue is not really about the extraction of natural resources from parks, but about tourism and the ambition of politicians to have National Parks and Gardens pay their way (rather than accept a civil society is under an obligation to maintain them). The fact that forestry and mining issues have crept into this discussion is just a sign of the times.

On the wages of forestry workers and miners. Both are much higher than those of the servile industries. The conditions are more likely to be full time and being unionised industries, overtime is often available.

It is true that every tradable item can be viewed as a commodity (including tourism), and subject to periodic ups and downs of the market. However, those who eagerly anticipate the end of our pioneering history and frontier culture, preferring real industry to be written off as history, are out of luck. The good news is both forestry and mining are here to stay. There is no evidence of an imminent collapse of the markets. Along with agriculture, both form part of a well balanced economy in a nation such as Australia.

Forestry also maintains practical skills and knowledge within rural communities. The skills of foresters are useful when dealing with issues such as weeds, vegetation and fire control. Maintaining the availability of these skills in rural communities is important as we cannot rely on pensioners or feminised environmental activists to provide much help with practical land management. While a few such individuals may be enthused, the majority are not. Anyhow, they generally lack the capability to be of much help.

Cheers.

[Gadgetgeek]

I can't disagree with you there, The fact that I tend to shoot my mouth of does not detract from the fact that this is a huge and complex issue.
On the subject of natural resource extraction, I guess my main thought is that most of these industries tend to got about things in the way they've always done them. The same can be said for other industries like say auto-manufacture, especially in north america. And in general they are better at saying they do a good job, than actually doing it. But as you say, thats not really the point. Maybe forestry is different here, but in Canada all the guys who know anything about anything are either rangers, or retired. And I know lots of loggers, yes they can plow in a fire-break, but not one of them is out counting beetles. but enough de-railing.

As for parks and fees, I've never had a problem paying the entry fee when going into national parks in Canada. I feel that it is a good value for the my money, and I get much more out of it than the folks that pay the same to also drink over-priced hot chocolate at the resort, when I can take the road a little further, and get away. I've also taken advantage of other areas that are related to the parks, as some trails are accessible from outside the park, or due to geography are undeveloped, but would have been if the park was not there. Provincial parks that are not pay-to-play are generally very poor, few trails, limited access and often generally poorly looked after.

My theory is that because the federal parks are get better coverage, and more extra tourist dollars get spent, then people feel more inclined to get involved. Yes there is more regulation, but by and large it lets people know that things are important. When no fees are involved, no one cares as much, and often the free places get destroyed by idiots who think chainsaws an important part of camping, and wood from the ground won't burn. I don't know for sure, but I've heard that more bears get put down in provincial park areas because people don't take the care they need too, as well as there being less signage, and a generally more lax attitude. But a fed bear is a dead bear. As far as I can tell, no government now is going to spend money to keep a park going with no benefit economically. Its just not going to happen. But if parks make themselves relevant by having enough simple touristy things, like bus tours, and sights to see that they can turn a profit, then more area can be conserved for those who want to get farther away. But with that said, in the current climate I don't know that its possible. I live 30 min from a resort that should be full to capacity without much effort, and yet somehow no one can make it work, and the other resort that is doing "well" isn't exactly an economic wildfire.
I don't think we can have it both ways, If its free, and there is no maintenance, very few will use it (although some will love it) then no one will know what the point is, and it will be sold off. If you pay to play, then you get huts and long-drops, and water, and a few more people.
I don't know what the full answer is. Fees done right can be a really good thing. But I fully understand the pessimism regarding that.

Tony Abbot seems like he's cut from the same cloth as Stephen Harper, born a century late, maybe two.

[Hallu]

Well that's what Australian politics and conservation plans are unfortunately : a century old.

[Gadgetgeek]

I feel you on that one. Hopefully they don't hang out too much, Stephens a bit of a fire bug when it comes to libraries. anyways, too much depressing politics, I'm out.

[stepbystep]

Imagine all that wonderful national park land management that could be done with, oh I don't know, a properly funded parks and wildlife service... Nah best subsidise forestry and mining and let 'em into our parks.

Forestry also maintains practical skills and knowledge within rural communities. The skills of foresters are useful when dealing with issues such as weeds, vegetation and fire control. Maintaining the availability of these skills in rural communities is important as we cannot rely on pensioners or feminised environmental activists to provide much help with practical land management. While a few such individuals may be enthused, the majority are not. Anyhow, they generally lack the capability to be of much help.

But I'm too much of a feminised environmentalist to bite too deep on this one

[north-north-west]

Forestry also maintains practical skills and knowledge within rural communities. The skills of foresters are useful when dealing with issues such as weeds, vegetation and fire control. Maintaining the availability of these skills in rural communities is important as we cannot rely on pensioners or feminised environmental activists to provide much help with practical land management. While a few such individuals may be enthused, the majority are not. Anyhow, they generally lack the capability to be of much help.

But I'm too much of a feminised environmentalist to bite too deep on this one

I'm not.

I'm not one who's ever believed in calling in the mods to deal with potential insulting and offensive comments, but your use of 'feminised' in that tone has me itching to hit the alert button. There's is nothing so insulting to the female portion of the population as the use of 'feminised' or equivalent terms as generalised insults, however veiled.

Jerk.

[gayet]

There's is nothing so insulting to the female portion of the population as the use of 'feminised' or equivalent terms as generalised insults, however veiled.

Jerk.

+1

[maddog]

G'day Gadgetgeek,

I agree if parks were to impose some kind of entry fee for the use of national parks to cover costs of management it would be reasonable policy. Such a scheme would be similar to those requiring fishermen (or hunters) to purchase licences. It would certainly be preferable to the mooted alternative - allowing private 'tourist' development within parks and gardens. If such a scheme were to be introduced it would be better if those on low incomes and minors were exempted from the impost.

NNW,

I could express faux outrage at being called 'ugly', 'lazy', 'ignorant', an 'industry stooge', 'patronising', 'condescending' and a 'jerk'. But these descriptions may be viewed as either expressions of endearment or distractions from substantive argument. So I shan't.

Cheers.

[north-north-west]

NNW,
I could express faux outrage at being called 'ugly', 'lazy', 'ignorant', an 'industry stooge', 'patronising', 'condescending' and a 'jerk'. But these descriptions may be viewed as either expressions of endearment or distractions from substantive argument. So I shan't.

Oh sorry. I hadn't realised this was one of those debates where it's OK for you to be as patronising, condescending and snidely insulting as you liked, but that anyone who called you on it would be considered beneath contempt.
Please, continue. Don't allow my honesty to detract from your enjoyment or to affect your style.

[icefest]

...and that's enough. PM each other and settle your differences that way or report each other and let the mods decide.

It's just turning into a flame way.

[Nuts]

When compared to the damage caused by tourism forestry is almost benign

I agree, 'almost'. How benign comparable to tourism? Insignificant would be just not be correct. However carefully managed, tourism development has an ongoing environmental as well as social impact. Once in place it makes good sense to be always pushing for more. Much easier with a precedent. Does the public imagine that those hoteliers (eg. here around Cradle Mt.) don't hold considerable sway? Will they act as good local community members without a tight hand.. or do the least required. Changed hands frequently in my time. Some measure of experience with them suggests that they would act no differently to (eg) Gunns in similar political times.

It wouldn't be lost on long term residents to see the pressure on local services from tourism already in place. Are they really paying their way? The goal is to double this impact in the short term... 'to replace existing industry'. Now it seems to 'add to existing impacts', rather than be a relief.

Log trucks are no fun, swap a 100+k load of quality timbers for how many rent-a-cars?

edit: not that we shouldn't welcome tourists, though bushwalkers probably have a better general appreciation of increasing pressure on resources and local environment.

[walkon]

The good news is both forestry and mining are here to stay. There is no evidence of an imminent collapse of the markets. Along with agriculture, both form part of a well balanced economy in a nation such as Australia.

Forestry also maintains practical skills and knowledge within rural communities. The skills of foresters are useful when dealing with issues such as weeds, vegetation and fire control. Maintaining the availability of these skills in rural communities is important as we cannot rely on pensioners or feminised environmental activists to provide much help with practical land management. While a few such individuals may be enthused, the majority are not. Anyhow, they generally lack the capability to be of much help.

Cheers.

Maddog since your fixation is on timber and mining industry obviously and only two points are valid. First re a balanced economy, second in the forestry/mining in fire control. This though can be argued that they have alot of vested self interest.

Dollar for dollar any money invested in tourism compared to forestry/mining results in more money staying in our country and more importantly the money stays in the area in question. I'm not oppsed to mining or forestry as stated before.

I didn't agree with the fishing licenses as they are double dipping tax wise and I don't agree with paying fees to go onto public land, especially when its undeveloped.

[icefest]

especially when its undeveloped.

On the surface I agree with this statement, but:

In Australian national parks "undeveloped" is an active process, requiring active management (such as SPRATS http://bit.ly/1hgPsBF).

A fee to help keep national parks/coastlines 'undeveloped' is IMHO a realistic idea.

[Hallu]

Agreed, people often don't see the invisible work to keep and area prestine, mainly pest management and weed control. Regarding tourism, yes its benefits are better used : the states own the parks, and even though they don't always use the money wisely, it's theirs. Benefits from mining often go to foreign companies, mainly Indian, American or Chinese... In my view, they just pay rent to destroy an ecosystem...