Persecution of a Different Species.......

Something that has always been a worry, is how some plants and animals brought to Australia from other countries are called exotics and as they thrive and grow in number, are then labelled pests. These plants and animals from countries far away in most cases, and amongst these animals are humans that come from other lands. Some that came or were brought here, prospered, thrived and multiplied, rather too well in some cases, are excluded from being naturalised by the term exotic, feral or pest. These human immigrants and their descendants are the ones pointing the finger at the descendants of plants their parents brought with them, and/or spread throughout the land; calling them pests?

This policy of removing these naturalised Australians, stems from some misguided idea that natives are the way to go and that introduced people can live with the first nation people, or rather the other way round. But these plants/animals designated as nuisance, cannot. Even though without the wheat, corn, cattle, sheep etc., Australia could not support the population it now contains nor would it earn enough money to sustain it. The aforementioned are not the ones that are branded as pests or feral or needing eradication. But the natives were removed, killed, cut down and burnt, so the “desirable” exotics would thrive.

The selective choice of the species which are labelled pests or for that matter feral is distinctive. Wheat is not a feral or pest or even considered as anything but beneficial. Yet because people haven't been able to bend their mind round finding a use for white poplar [Populus alba] it's considered to be undesirable and now one of the pest species? The same is applied to certain animals. The fox is a pest and yet ovine and bovine species are not. The fox assists in cleaning up much that might spread disease to the ovine and bovine species?

In the case of the East Gippsland Shire Council [EGSC] white poplar is seen, as it can be, invasive. That's not in evidence where this species of tree is the framework of a Grey Headed Flying Fox maternity roost. But it's used as an example because it is elsewhere. Though it should not be eradicated, because its usefulness to a native Australian in this case makes it important, the [EGSC] see it as something they must destroy.

However, there is a hidden agenda. It's the native protected and in danger of extinction, flying fox species that uses the tree which the EGSC sees as a pest and is trying move on. The ploy is to use the excuse of removing something which in some areas is invasive. So remove the poplar which is the framework for the flying fox roost and you move the flying foxes. If it was suggested that the flying foxes were the problem, then it would be halted very quickly, there would be no footing for removal. Remove this invasive exotic tree, is accepted [Tongue in cheek] It's just unfortunate that a Grey Headed Flying Fox maternity roost hangs in it's welcoming branches.

The shire doesn't care where the flying foxes move to. Because if they move to a place where they really are going to be seen as a problem. The shire will suggest they are justified in moving them, on that they are a problem pretext. Actually moving the flying foxes which is what's supposed to happen by removing the poplars. Because they are unable to move them just now, due to their protection by law and because they are doing no harm, they use the poplar removal ruse.

If the flying foxes move right out of the area, well then, that's what the shire want. So either way, it's a win win situation for the shire. A pogrom of sorts that some people suffered in the past, now used on another species, the flying foxes. It succeeded with some dictators applying it to people. People tend to forget what persecution is all about, and how it's carried out.

The problem is not a pest tree, it's the native animal that some people consider a pest. It's a local government experiment to see if it is possible to persecute a minority, by using a subterfuge that will appeal even to people who want something particular. Have them work against what they want. People want native plants and yet don't mind tormenting and threatening and persecuting native animals to do it? Can that be real?

Allowing the apathy of the majority to just stand by and watch. Not realising what they are doing or allowing. Tacitly giving power to and playing into the hands of those who will eventually use it against them.

If This is True

If this is true, it will be the first step and develop into an exhilarating ride for mankind. Firstly to put a foundation under this dream, and then to really get teeth into discovering how we are going to extract ourselves from the use of fossil fuels. How to harvest the wind, sun and build on renewable recyclable energy and share the knowledge and technology world wide.

This will create employment, and allow people to bend their mind in the path of working with the natural world, working with what we have which we won't damage or destroy. It's taken too long, but now there is commitment..............

Forget space; this is the real challenge to which the human mind and will should first be directed. To save the natural world and use our renewable resources effectively and wisely.

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/paris_here_we_come/

Iniquities of Fuel Reduction Burns

We are all aware how destructive fuel reduction burns are in our forests. Fuel reduction burns are what the government uses to try to confuse the general public into believing it's actually doing something and that this will slow down and even prevent fires. Cynically omitting that the fires which burn property and towns and house on farmland are from grass fires. Grass that has been imported into Australia to feed the domestic livestock that has also been imported. Native grasses burn less easily.

Here is an article from Bob McDonald that sheds some more light on the fuel reduction burn process, and how it has been misused:
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/its-time-to-stop-lighting-fires

Fuel reduction burns, if they are carried out anywhere, should be carried out around the population centres, where they will do the most good. But that's not possible because those areas are used for agriculture and usually grow imported grasses and crops. Unfortunately this is also the path the fires use to get into the towns and city outskirts.

Here also can be found some information on fuel reduction burning:
http://www.egwildlife.com.au/burns.html

Can this be real?

The apiarists of Tasmania again made it clear they wanted the logging industry to be reinstated to its former destructive level because it maintains the roads so they can get into the areas where they are able to harvest leatherwood and manuka honey in the forest. Is this for real? The first time this was mooted was in April http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/honey-producers-want-forestry-tasmania-on-road-to-financial-health/story-fnj4f7k1-1226884353072 which I thought was mistimed, as April 1 had been and gone.

It has been said to me that Tasmania is about 2 or 3 decades behind the mainland, a kind of backwardness one associates with a lack of knowledge. This is obvious because all over the mainland beekeepers are screaming against the trees being logged, the destruction and the general obtuseness of government concerning the issue of conservation of forested areas that still exist.

When working bees back in the 60's, beekeepers were considered as the guardians of the forest. The Tasmanian beekeepers obviously don't see themselves in this way? Their vision is somewhat myopic if they haven't seen what has been happening on the mainland with the logging in operation here. More than likely, few beekeepers on the mainland would want roads into forest maintained at the cost that is extracted from the honey industry and the environment to maintain these roads.

It would be better for everyone if all logging as it's practised today, is stopped, and beekeepers have to put money into better trucks to transport their hives into the areas from which they wish to harvest the nectar produced by the still in situ trees. Trees and understorey, that if left untouched would still be producing honey for future beekeepers.