The future of Australian National Parks

[vicrev]

Sure am Maddog ,bring in the elephants & there will be no native grass, no native trees, zilch ....have you ever been to Africa ? I have,the elephants consume everything !......this argument/discussion has become one big elephant joke .....& is not constructive in any shape or form to the problem.......

[vicrev]

[J M]

I agree with the others, I can't see a true change happening until there is a major change in the Australian psyche. It would be interesting to see how the general population view this issue, or if they are even aware if it.

[Hallu]

Well in other countries it usually takes extinction of several species and environmental disasters to make a people really aware of the importance of its wild places. In the US, it was the destructive power of the industrial revolution in the East, and the ridiculous way they ruined places such as Niagara Falls. In France, it was the extinction of bears, wolves and mountain goats, and the awareness that those pesky Italians were protecting their nature better than us.

I think Australia is a special case though. In most countries, coal and iron ran out a long time ago. So the "tradition" of exploiting the Earth prevailing over protecting it is gone in Europe for example. Not because Europeans are smarter, but just because the ore ran out. Believe me, if there was gold fields in the Alps, it'd be a different story. Look at the Canadians and the oil sands... They don't care at all about the environment when there's oil. Are Australians prepared to have lower wages just to save their country ? I mean we could look at it another way : Aussie soldiers fought to death in the first and second world wars to defend their land. One could ask why they aren't fighting as much right now during a war against an even more destructive enemy such as climate change, pests, industrial mining, farming and logging, not to mention landgrabs by the Chinese and Indians. Often we hear that if Australia taxed the mining companies and used that money for conservation it'd mean fewer jobs... Why ? Especially when a lot of mining jobs are temporary and filled by new immigrants while conservation projects, such as the Civilian Conservation Corps created by F D Roosevelt as part of the New Deal in the 30's can bring local jobs... I mean look at what the CCC did in America :

During the time of the CCC, enrollees planted nearly 3 billion trees to help reforest America, constructed more than 800 parks nationwide and upgraded most state parks, updated forest fire fighting methods, and built a network of service buildings and public roadways in remote areas. The CCC operated separate programs for veterans and Native Americans

Doesn't it sound like exactly what Australia needs right now ? Juste replace "Native Americans" with "Native Australians" and you got it... Yes I know it was a congress-approved emergency program created to battle an economic crisis, but isn't Abbott continuously going on about how we are in an economic crisis already and that's why we need more mining, logging and industrial farming anyway ? Well, it looks like FDR found another way 80 years ago...

[jdeks]

Maddog isn't as mad as he seems, actually: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conse ... 0201-1qu2q


Lotta people saying that public attitude is the big problem, and they're right, but not in the way they think.

The whole point of the OP's article was that the traditional approach isn't working. We cordon off pieces of land the size of a small country as some sort of environmental fortress, and yet species are still dying off. This puritanical mentality of 'preserving' whats 'supposed' to be there is not only proving ineffective, it's outdated - we've already got more introduced species of plants in Aus than 'native'.

Everyone's quick to say 'introduced is terrible', but rarely is their opposition out of any familiarity with the science on the matter. More often it's based on some sort of environmental xenophobia, kindled by folklore about rabbits and cane-toads, fostering the assumption that anything other than what was already here before must be inherently bad. That's not to say we don't have reason to make this assumption - we do have a lot of harmful invasive species. But then we've also got arguably beneficial introduced species, like the Monarch Butterfly and African Dung beetle, neither of which has the clubbing of with a cricket bat become a national pastime.

See, it's not being introduced that's the problem. It's the imbalance resulting from careless introduction that damages the ecosystem. Carefully introduced species can work very well - heck, they're already being successfully used to balance out the original problem immigrants. Elephants are actually one such potentially credible suggestion. They do have a lot going for them - climate compatible, soil-friendly soft feet, big appetite for grasses we want gone, very slow reproduction rate and fairly easy to keep track of. Not to mention at this rate, they're going to be extinct from their homeland within a generation.

So with all these potential merits, if people are saying that even CONSIDERING introduced elephants is CRAZY TALK, why aren't they out clubbing butterflies?

Politicians don't care about conservation issues unless it means votes, because votes are what they're passionate about. In much the same way, a lot of environmentalists are extremely passionate about protecting what they love, making conservation an inherently emotionally-centered standpoint. Their idea of conservation is very literal, conserving the pure beauty of nature the way they imagine it, where kangaroos leap past Uluru in the sunset, and the Lion King taught them that elephants are from Africa and Africa is where they should stay. Anything that threatens that ideal is dismissed without further thought or consideration. In a way, the politicians are at least more logical in their ambivalence

So what do we get? A new idea for a sustainable natural environment, with politicians who won't try it because it wont win votes, business that won't try because it won't make money, and environmentalists who wont try it because it's not puritanical enough. So nothing changes.

I'm not saying we should bring a herd of African greys over and cut 'em loose in Kakadu. That would be as dumb as our previous exercises. But what I AM saying is maybe if we want to have *something* left for our grand-kids, it's time to get practical and look at testing the options based on factual merits, instead of reactive sentimentality. It'd be awesome if we could have kept Australia the way it was 30 000 years ago. But we can't. People who are dead now did some things without thinking and now we've got more Gamba grass than we can run a Victa over.

We want people to change their attitudes? If we keep on with the same approach we have so far, we're not going to have anything left to convince people that nature's worth a damn. Failed systems win no followers. But if compromising our ecological purity a little can create a sustainable, beautiful, diverse ecosystem for all the world to see, it may well turn out to be valuable enough down the track that people WILL start taking environmental protection seriously.

Also a world with refugee elephants is better than a world with no elephants.

[icefest]

"G'day" maddog.

Please tell me more about how small government, with less federal input is the best solution. How does it avoid duplication of costs and prevent dams such as the lower Gordon from being built?

[maddog]

G’day jdeks,

Good post. The problem with the puritanical vision is that it is unable to adapt to the reality on the ground. Remote decisions are poor decisions. Ecologists are willing to entertain new ideas, to look at the function of an organism across the landscape and overlook its origins (e.g. the dingo / wild dog issue), but the ‘useful idiots’ are not – to them purity matters above all else. The sad reality is that new age puritans have now become more of a hindrance than a help and will never accept the reality of a new nature (or even one in which humans play a part). Donning the hairshirt will not aid conservation efforts. The black armband view - most unfortunate really.

G’day Icefest,

I have not advocated ‘small government’ but have argued for local control. The duplication of cost is not something I lose sleep over.

Cheers,

Maddog.

[Nuts]

G'day Maddog!

--

Moving away from elephants for a moment:

I'd just like to express concern with the enthusiasm for a turnover from parks or indeed one being necessary:

"Peter Mooney, general manager of the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, in Hobart, says 26 per cent of its revenue comes from people and companies using the park system.

"We have more partnerships and private sector involvement than any other park system in the nation," he says, noting that in order to survive, parks need to provide tangible benefits to local communities in the form of tourism and jobs."

I really don't know if it's personal or professional enthusiasm in this case but I wonder what will 'survive'. Recent directions in parks and apparently some level of acceptance by the wider 'environmental' community are already eroding my preference as to what a national park should be and how it's to be funded, minimal infrastructure, minimal impact, minimal regulation, maximal inclusion. Parkies should be caring for our parks not heading further down the track of gathering and counting beans, funding should not be their concern.

[Hallu]

You do know plane travel exists and that the government doesn't stay all year in a bunker in Canberra right Maddog ? To talk about what I know, presidents and national park service directors travelled all around the US to visit the potential parks and take the best decisions, while most state governor had never seen what they were refusing to protect, they just learned from some of their constituents that money could made from them... Hell, Theodore Roosevelt visited all the US in a matter of weeks when there was still only train travel a century ago. The time when it was the Queen and the british PM making the decision via telegraph from the other end of the world is over you know.

Just to give you a famous example of the government knowing better than the state : in Alaska, most of the population was against created huge national parks and wanted to open them for mining and oil prospecting. Jimmy Carter forced their hand by setting aside huge areas (millions of acres) for parks thanks to the Antiquities Act. It sparked riots in Alaska, and was a big part of what cost Carter reelection. A decade later, those same Alaskans saw their revenue increasing through tourism and asked for more land to be set aside, land that they once fought for keeping for settlement... It was the same thing in the Grand Canyon : Arizona wanted to open it up for dams and mining. Only once the governor got caught for corruption it was made into a national park... California wanted to log sequoias now protected in Yosemite and Sequoia NPs, Florida wanted to drain the Everglades to make this unique wetland into a new big Miami... I can't think of one example where the government got it wrong. Granted, the US have a good system : Congress, the Antiquities Act, the powerful Sierra Club, Australia doesn't have all that. But it could definitely learn from it.

[LachlanB]

Dear jdeks,
The point of the OP wasn't that the traditional approach has failed, only that there are potential ways we can refine it and there are big questions and opportunities facing Australia about its environment.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of National Parks, only how it's applied. Parks are almost always placed on inferior land, and that is why extinctions are continuing, not due to any inherent fallacy of the concept of National Parks.
See the graph on page 3 of Pressey et al, 2002 (here's a link, it should be free: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rob ... 000000.pdf)
The idea of introducing elephants into Australia is ridiculous. It was proposed as a comment and intended o be controversial. There is no research to suggest that it is a good idea, and past experiments with large herbivores haven't proved very successful. And if elephants were introduced and proved to be an ecological menace, I can't imagine the public being supportive of a cull. Think feral horses, only worse. I am not, as you put it, an environmental xenophobe, and am perfectly fine with planned introductions. The thing is, these planned introductions (Dung beetles, Cactoblastis cactorum, myxomatosis/calicivirus) are all responses to other introductions which were all planned, and are attempts to undo existing damage. They're not positive for the environment, only not as big a negative as the feral species they were introduced to compete with. Australia has a long history of ecologically damaging planned introductions. It is fallacious to try and equate butterflies to elephants: one is a pollinator, the other is a many ton ecosystem engineer.
Yes, African Elephants come from a similar climate, but that does not mean that they are compatible with Australian vegetation and there is an 'empty niche' for them. They don't have "soil-friendly soft feet", and would cause massive erosion. Sure, they might have an appetite for grasses we want gone, but perhaps also for things we want more. That they'll go extinct in their normal habitat doesn't mean that they should be transformed into a feral species elsewehere, focus should instead be on protecting them in their natural habitat.

[jdeks]

The idea of introducing elephants into Australia is ridiculous. It was proposed as a comment and intended o be controversial. There is no research to suggest that it is a good idea, and past experiments with large herbivores haven't proved very successful.

Valid points, but you've jumped the gun a bit there, Lachlan. Like I said, I don't actually support the idea of just introducing elephants.

The point of my little diatribe was that we need to start opening up to investigating alternative options, and deciding based on scientific merit instead of preconceived assumptions about what belongs and what doesnt. We can argue the toss about what grass elephants might find tasty until the buffalo come home. It's all just speculation at this stage. The reality is that we don't know *&%$#! about how elephants would affect our ecosystem right now. We don't know how the introduction of anything would, unless we do the diligence on the science.

Plans to introduce Tasmanian devils onto the mainland to deal with cats and isolate the spread of the tumor disease have been met with public support, because at first glance we think of it as an 'Australian' animal. But there's plenty of ecologists saying the same thing, whether it's elephants, Tassie devils or angry birds - we don't know how it will affect things unless we test it first.

We shouldn't treat not knowing as justification to completely dismiss. We've proven that with testing, controlled species introduction can work . All I'm saying is it's equally fallacious to say "IT'S RIDICULOUS!" as it is to say it's a good idea, until we've actually tested it. If we're serious about fixing these problems, then we should be open to testing as maybe potential options as possible. Even if they seem outlandish.

That they'll go extinct in their normal habitat doesn't mean that they should be transformed into a feral species elsewehere, focus should instead be on protecting them in their natural habitat.

We've been pushing that model for 50 years now. It doesn't work. Despite all the conservations and reserves, paid for with first-world money and patrolled by armed guards, populations numbers are still falling. Why?

Because we're on the losing side. The geopolitical climate and cultural attitude over there is even less interested in conservation issues than we are. Much like I've seen here in Asia too - I spoke to a Thai chap here a few months back about why they consider elephants semi-sacred, but he keeps a calf chained up and beaten into submission 24/7 outside his shop? He literally couldn't understand the question - why WOULDN'T he have an elephant? Draws in customers by the dozen! The developing world is focused on getting ahead instead of getting hungry, and if that means destroying a species along the way, then better hurry up and get a good deal for it.

The root of that problem is simply not going to change fast enough to save the species at risk. It's just not going to happen. I'm not saying their imminent extinction is reason alone enough to introduce them here - that should be a case proven or disprove on its own merits. But lets not delude ourselves. We limit our focus on protecting them in their natural habitat alone, they will be gone in our lifetime.

[maddog]

Hello Hallu,

Fly in fly out pointy heads with no local knowledge is your solution to the problem? Appoint the same committee that designed the camel? More power to Greg Hunt? What happened to the plan to eliminate feral cats in Australia?

Also you forgot to mention Hetch Hetchy dam.

G’day LachlanB,

A planned introduction is what Bowman has argued for. His original piece is hidden behind Nature’s paywall, but we get a fair idea from this article on the ABC.

Flannery has also devoted much time to the idea. According to Flannery (see OP for reference):

The Aborigines acted as a keystone in Australia by carefully burning the vegetation that was once eaten by megafauna, and by regulating the abundance of the remaining species through hunting. Take the keystone out of the arch, and the structure collapses…the consequences of this particular keystone removal are still being played out today.

Strangely enough, neither Bowman nor Flannery argue for your (rather speculative) explanation for our current malaise – that everything can be blamed on inferior land. Both these distinguished ecologists point to a vacant ecological niche. So who should the reader believe?

Also – given their large size and low reproductive rates, population control via contraception is a perfectly viable strategy.

Cheers,

Maddog.

[LachlanB]

Had a look at the Nature piece, didn't realise there was a paywall ): If you want I'll copy and past the original document so that others can read it?
Bowman's argument rests on the assumption that there are empty ecological niches, and that by introducing feral grazing animals we are occupying them. I contend that there are no (or few) empty ecological niches in the ecosystem, and that the species feral species are all generalists that have occupied niches previously filled by specialist native species. I

Flannery's hypothesises about Indigenous burning in Australia are mistaken. He (and Bill Gammage in The Biggest Estate on Earth) extrapolates Indigenous burning across the entirety of the contentment and suggests that modern 'scrub' did not exist prior to European settlement. This is an inaccurate picture of the complexity of pre-European Australia. Fire stick farming did occur, but on a small scale in the extremely fertile and productive parts of the landscape; this is why there was so much conflict between Europeans and the previous inhabitants, because they both wanted to utilise the same areas. Trying to extrapolate these practises into areas where they did not occur (ie, most current reserves) is a recipe of ecological disaster.

I wasn't linking my comments about the inferior siting of national parks to the arguments of Flannery and Bowman, that was in relation to a different point. However, they are most certainly not speculative and are supported by many current ecologists. I am happy to provide references to (more) scientific papers if you wish. The recent paper I provided a link to (Effectiveness of protected areas in north-eastern New South Wales: recent trends in six measures) certainly approaches the issue; I'm curious why you think I'm being speculative?

[Hallu]

Hetch Hetchy was a California plan, the federal government did everything it could to oppose it (it did successfully for decades), but with the San Francisco earthquake it gave California the perfect excuse to gather support (more like pity) and build it. It was the only dam ever built in a National Park in the US, which is not what I can say about Australia and its state managed parks... The fact of the matter is this : states are greedy and don't give a damn about "local knowledge".

[LachlanB]

I agree jdeks, that no introduction program should happen without stringent research, regardless of wether it is the Tasmanian Devil, or the African Elephant. Doing otherwise is simply inviting another episode of the can beetle/toad debacle.

Investigating alternative options is all well and fine, especially if it is something that may potentially provide value for (rare) conservation dollars like the Tasmanian Devil. However, I don't think it is fallacious to reject absurd ideas like introducing African Elephants to Australia. To even attempt to do research to prove such a theory would be a monumental waste of resources (a white elephant, perhaps?). Sure, doing so might be marginally more scientifically valid that rejecting fringe proposals ( on the basis of you can't know until you try it).
I fail to see how an elephant can be equated on Australia's extinct megafauna. Even the diprotodon, the largest known marsupial, was only about half the size of an African Elephant. Plus, it has a different tread to the large, flat feet of an elephant, and would do less damage to Australia's fragile soils and creeks.

I know that the current conservation methods for protecting Elephants in Africa and Asia aren't working. But flying them into a different ecosystem in Australia isn't a solution, we have to rethink what we're doing in their habitat.

[vicrev]

Just had a thought ...why not bring in Giraffes to eat the mistletoe out of the trees,Hippos to get rid of the carp in the waterways,Vultures to clean up the roadkill in Tassie,...Also, they will keep the homesick Elephants company & stop them being stressed out carrying all the tourists up Cradle Mountain. ......Lighten up,people ......

[LachlanB]

Also, they will keep the homesick Elephants company & stop them being stressed out carrying all the tourists up Cradle Mountain.

Skip the Giraffes for that, go straight to the Lion. Afterall, there were Marsupial Lions!
Australia: The New Home of the Big Cat!

[maddog]

G’day LachlanB,

Thanks for the kind offer but I already have access to it (the ABC one is for the benefit of any that may not). On niches: if the niche is occupied invaders will have difficulty establishing themselves; if it is vacant (or imperfectly occupied) the invader has an opportunity; if there is no niche the invader will perish. Many native species are also generalists, but they are not very fit for purpose so get shunted aside.

On burning, you are on the wrong side of history I’m afraid. So much of the monotonous scrub we see today is nothing more than post-aboriginal regrowth; vegetation thickening evidence of serious ecological decline. Wilderness ideology has failed to save our species but has provided spectacular wildfire. Active management is the new hope. Bowman, Flannery, Gammage, etc. - fire-stick ecology is the new consensus, but elephants may help to reduce fuel loads (a legacy of wilderness ideology).

Active management cannot be conducted from an armchair. As alternatives to elephants we have mechanical clearing or broad-scale clearing – take your pick.

Cheers,

Maddog.

[LachlanB]

On niches: Australia has been isolated for such a long time that most of our species are specialists, and have adapted to a single niche. Many feral species are able to establish themselves in the wild because they are generalists, and are able to outcompete these specialists as niches become increasing damaged and degraded due to human activity. It is no coincidence that many successful invasive species in Australia come from Europe or Northern America: the biodiversity of both was bulldozed by glaciers in the last ice-age, and is now largely comprised of colonial specie with adaptive capabilities. Australian species are extremely well adapted to the environment in which they live (ie, absolutely 'fit' for purpose), however have difficulty competeing with hypercompetitive generalist species.

The post-Aboriginal regrowth is not new. It existed prior to European settlement. Gammage and Flannery are highly selective in the painting and journal excerpts they include in their well publicised works, and largely ignore or creatively edit to avoid the vast amount of evidence that does not support their hypothesises. Happy to provide examples if you want. Our landscape needs a more imaginative approach than simply 'burn it all!'; that will not arrest species decline in Australia. I don't know what the solution is- traditional fire-stick farming is part of it, but it is not the whole solution, and is but no means appropriate for the entire landscape.

There is nothing wrong with "spectacular wildfires", as you put it, in the Australian landscape. Sure, they pose a risk to people, but they are a natural process that was occurring well prior to European settlement, with no deleterious effect on overall ecological structure. Sure, it looks apocalyptic in the wake of a large bushfire, but in reality, healthy bushland is well capable of recovering from fire. In an area that is now not regularly burnt, like Capes Banks and Solander in Sydney, you can largely find the same floral assembly that was collected by Banks and Solander on the Endeavour nearly two and a half centuries ago. If a lack of fire was destroying ecosystems, many of the species collected by Banks and Solander would long since have been lost from Cape Banks and Solander.

Places like the Brindabellas (as an example) were not burnt on a regular basis by Indigenous Australians with fire-stick farming. Sure, some of the flatlands in the Murrumbidgee and Molonglo would have been potentially managed by fire-stick farming; but that is because it is productive country. The Brindabellas are not; and Indigenous Australians had little reason to venture up there regularly, and thus did not expend the vast amount of energy required for fire managing the land on the Brindabellas. Thus unmanaged, 'catastrophic' fires like Canberra 2003 fires would still have occurred, as the fuel loads would still be present. There fires are not a product of European mismanagement of the land; they are simply a byproduct of Australia's drying climate as it moves north through continental drift.

[FootTrack]

why not bring in Giraffes to eat the mistletoe out of the trees

I'm only intermittently following this thread, but I thought I should touch on this point. Mistletoes are not "bad", "exotic" or "something that needs to be cleaned up" like many people have been led to believe. Mistletoes are important, non-poisonous, native species, which provide food and shelter within ecosystems. They are parasitic, but do not kill trees. For further reading on this topic, see below.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-mist ... 1p5nr.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 044992.htm

[maddog]

G’day LachlanB,

Tasmanian Devils, thylacines and quolls are (or were) obvious examples of unfit native animals. Strong, aggressive and stupid. None of these are (or were) specialists and all have suffered (or perished) due to the introduction of super-species – they just could not compete. So naturally enough some caution is advisable before further introductions. But what exactly do you foresee as suffering due to radio-collared, sterilised elephants, in a program as suggested by Bowman? Do you really think their impact would be greater than uncontrollable wild-fire?

On Flannery – I have no issue ignoring the man when he talks about climate, but when he sticks to his knitting (mammals) he is very agreeable. On Gammage – his book is about 300 pages longer than could have been if it were not necessary to defend himself from critics such as yourself. He really needed to demonstrate just how wide spread indigenous burning was, and he did just that, very convincingly.

On wildfire - many of our Eucalypt forests are just not recovering from modern wildfires (the same problem is occurring in North America). These are only natural events if we exclude humans or megafauna as keystone species. Farmers and foresters have understood these facts for some time, ecologists and Park’s rangers started slowly, but are rapidly catching up. All but a few contrarians agree with Gammage, your numbers are dwindling, and the public is not listening as they have learnt the cost of 'wilderness' is just too high.

On vegetation thickening - serious commentators understand this is a problem, which is why we now have laws allowing the clearing of invasive native scrub. There is just too much of it about. It's a dirty, unhealthy and degraded landscape; an ecosystem in decline. Mechanical, chemical or elephants, which should we choose?

Cheers,

Maddog.

[vicrev]

why not bring in Giraffes to eat the mistletoe out of the trees

I'm only intermittently following this thread, but I thought I should touch on this point. Mistletoes are not "bad", "exotic" or "something that needs to be cleaned up" like many people have been led to believe. Mistletoes are important, non-poisonous, native species, which provide food and shelter within ecosystems. They are parasitic, but do not kill trees. For further reading on this topic, see below.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-mist ... 1p5nr.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 044992.htm

I was just taking the p%$*s & it was meant as a joke..Now it will be...Vicrev said to bring in Giraffes !!.......

[north-north-west]

May I give a small piece of advice to certain members of this forum? - PDFTT.

[highercountry]

On Flannery – I have no issue ignoring the man when he talks about climate...

So maddog denies the facts on climate change it appears.
Why doesn't that surprsie me?
Hopefully the skeptics will go the way of the dinosaurs and other "aggressive and stupid" species; extinction.

[FootTrack]

:shock: I was just taking the p%$*s & it was meant as a joke..Now it will be...Vicrev said to bring in Giraffes !!.......

That's what we've got you quoted as saying though isn't it vicrev? I'd be claiming that one if I were you. It's a revolutionary idea!

No, but in seriousness, the reason for my comment was that I thought you had grouped mistletoe in the "problems needing addressing" basket, as with european carp and other things. Which of course, shouldn't be the case. It was meant to be more of a side comment/point of interest, as opposed to one criticising your post.

May I give a small piece of advice to certain members of this forum? - PDFTT.

PDFTT eh, north-north-west! That's pretty trendy/hip/2015 I hadn't heard of that one before and had to google it...and I'm a so-called Gen Y!

[jdeks]

Investigating alternative options is all well and fine, especially if it is something that may potentially provide value for (rare) conservation dollars like the Tasmanian Devil. However, I don't think it is fallacious to reject absurd ideas like introducing African Elephants to Australia. To even attempt to do research to prove such a theory would be a monumental waste of resources (a white elephant, perhaps?).

Well, who are we to decide what ideas are absurd? It's not like either of us are experts in the field (correct me if I'm wrong there on your part, I know I'm not ). But our opinions are largely just (relatively) uninformed conjecture. Shouldn't we leave the selection of plausible solutions to the scientific community?

We've got a professor of ecology who thinks there's enough merit in testing elephants as a solution, to risk their neck by suggesting in public. I'd think he'd have a better grasp of whats absurd and whats worth a crack than us - why ignore him just because we 'kinda reckon it sounds silly'?

(PS - ....you wouldn't be the same LachlanB from a local motorcycling forum I used to go on, would you?)

May I give a small piece of advice to certain members of this forum? - PDFTT.

If anything, this is the closest thing we've had to a troll post on this thread so far. Everyone else has contributed polite, rational and constructive (if certainly opposing) arguments to the issue. Just because someones not on your side of the issue and is willing to defend their position doesn't make them a 'troll' - labeling them as such is a cheap ad-hominem.

[vicrev]

:shock: I was just taking the p%$*s & it was meant as a joke..Now it will be...Vicrev said to bring in Giraffes !!.......

That's what we've got you quoted as saying though isn't it vicrev? I'd be claiming that one if I were you. It's a revolutionary idea!

There you are,all you lot,with all your high ideals,higher education,Doctor of this, Professor of that,just use the grey matter you were given & think for yourselves,not keep quoting other peoples airy fairy ideas. ...............Ivé got another one,If the Elephants get out of hand,bring in African mice to chase them back to Africa ?(according to Wikipidea thingy,Elephants are scared of mice)

[LachlanB]

you wouldn't be the same LachlanB from a local motorcycling forum I used to go on, would you?

Nope, sorry to disappoint. The first thing I'd do if I sat on a motorbike would probably be fall straight off. I'm just very unimaginative with usernames.

Nah, I'm not an expert in the field, just very opinionated at times. Probably not a good combination.

I kinda think that the whole point of the elephants thing was to start discussions like this; to actually get people talking about some of the ecological problems in Australia. That's why he published it as a comment piece rather than a scientific article IMO.

[Pteropus]

This is a really interesting topic Hallu, and obviously ties into several other conservation related topics posted on this forum in the past (and equally divisive!). I think an important question that needs to be asked is: what is the purpose of National Parks? Are they for conservation purposes and/or for recreational use by the public? Obviously they are currently supposed to be for both these reasons, but as pointed out in the article, in many cases the conservation value of National Parks is somewhat lacking and more needs to be done in that respect. As to recreational use, different groups regularly feel they are left out of the use of parks. And of course there are the increasing discussions about commercial use of National Parks. Recreational and commercial use is more often than not going to come into conflict with conservation, but conversely is often seen as the only way to achieve conservation.

On the point of conservation, and as you are acutely aware, political will and funding are major constraints on proper conservation (not just in Australia but globally). Also, National Parks are not the limit of conservation, whether it be conserving biodiversity, cultural history, or just a pretty landscape. Private land is where most conservation actions need to be applied. But buying land or compulsory acquisition is understandingly controversial among land owners, especially if they have a strong attachment to their land, so both funding constraints and political will generally struggle to gain traction. And buying land for conservation requires getting the getting your money’s worth, or best bang-for-buck, so to speak, which is problematic if areas that have a high value for conservation are also areas that have high monetary value, which is often the case. Reserve designers can use software such as MARXAN, which can accommodate effect conservation outcomes at minimal cost. But it is rare for a government to apply tools such as MARXAN in practice, because of the aforementioned political will and funding issues.

Personally, I’d like to see better funding for National Parks as they stand, but I think that the biggest solution for conservation would be to increase protection of ecosystems on private land. Obviously this approach to conservation also requires a great deal of political will and funding, and faces many other hurdles such as competition from the powerful resources industry. A stronger Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and tougher land clearing laws that are enforceable would be required. Furthermore, private land is genuinely “locked up” for access, so many people who think of National Parks as their playgrounds or want to view a pretty landscape might not be so happy with land owners getting greater funding to protect patches of habitat at the expense of funding for National Parks as we traditionally know them. It gets harder if all conservation funding comes from the same pool of money. One might ask if we should fund more National Parks at the expense of conservation on private land? The situation is complicated. While a solution requires government and communities that are less likely to be beholden to commercial interests, it is often likely that these commercial interests are where funding will come from. Try and reconcile that one and our environment will be better off!

There are success stories though. Conservation wise, both governments and private organisations have bought or acquired properties for the purpose of conservation. For example, the WA government’s Lorna Glen, or the Australian Wildlife Conservancy’s sanctuaries. Also, as mentioned in the posted article, the Indigenous Protected Areas are an important part of the National Reserve System. As long as funding is maintained I think they are a reasonable baseline to move forward from. But we can do better.

[Hallu]

The thing is, some countries already took care of those questions decades ago with clear laws. With state parks being called national parks, Australia can't. The states can change the rules anytime they want. At first in the US, hotels, tennis courts, golf courts etc.. were being built or planned in National Parks. It took about 40 years to clearly forbid that, and it took 80 years to stop shooting predators (who were thought to be a menace to "cute" animals) and stop handfeeding wildlife. I feel like Australia missed the opportunity to have federal laws on parks while it was still a young country, and now it seems it's too late. Some states seem to be doing ok, such as Tasmania, others are a mess such as Queensland. We should at leat be able to have nationwide plans for such things as pest eradication, or laws against mining/logging/hunting in parks.