Lets hope they buy land that is Koala habitat, unless they plan on reforestation (which would be even better). Hix
I hate to be all negative, but.........Smoke and mirrors. That's actually less than what the Qld Govt had committed to under the koala plan before the change of Govt. And what does $22m buy these days - a few ha? So "increase habitat" is a laugh. If it's already koala habitat, then they are increasing nothing (especially since habitat with koalas on it is theoretically protected by the Commonwealth now, regardless of land tenure). Meanwhile they will clear at least 10 times whatever they buy at the same time. That's the reality of rapid South East Queensland development but it's still hard not to be bothered by the effect it is having on biodiversity and believe we should be doing more about it.
Here is a recent article from National Geographic on the koala's plight. Have a look at the other tabs at the top too - like the photo gallery. Koala Rescue - Pictures, More From National Geographic Magazine
Thats right, it would be easier and cheaper to reward land owners who have Koalas instead of penalizing them. Currently the last thing anyone wants to see on their property is a Koala. I have heard of Koalas being "got rid of" where they have been coexisting happily for ever, as if the government found Koalas were there they would be severely penalized and have to change what they were doing on the land.
Completely agree with this. Not everything can effectively be protected in reserves, especially in fertile areas. Stewardship payments for landholders is the answer, especially in wildlife corridors and if landowners are compensated to set land aside for conservation purposes in perpetuity. There are a few projects like this around the country (e.g. National environment stewardship program and Victorian Plains Tender program) but there should be a big combined program funded and run between Commonwealth Govt and state NRM bodies. Not always as effective in urban or peri-urban areas though as greedy developers and councils have too much influence.....
I agree totaly. Commonwealth & state govt would make your life hell,destroy any industry,devalue your land & still find a way to make you pay for the "conservation". Koalas would be about as popular as anthrax to a land owner. If more koalas are presenting for treatment to this hospital ,could that also mean they are becomming more abundent in this region , & not less ? Cheers Khakibob
How and why exactly? Is that all part of the conspiracy for koalas and governments to band together and destroy the rest of us? In the South East Queensland region, it's very clear that numbers are dwindling. Locally, koalas may be turning up places they have never been before because their habitat has been bulldozed but there's certainly not more of them.
They just aired this story on TV. Good luck viewing it if you are not in Australia. Koala Crunch Time - Four Corners
No conspiracy,its just if you were unfortunate enough to have koalas on your place, even if it was because of your own good land management practices,the do gooders would see so many blots put on your title & restrict your land use. You'd wish they never existed. If those who actually share the landscape with wildlife see it as a threat, it does not matter what some urbanised do gooders think.The outcome for the wildlife wont be good.The latest legislation on koala habitat in NSW by the federal environment minister has sent a strong message to those who may own potential koala habitat everywhere else. I'd rather see koalas as a valuable asset than a liability to those who actually own the habitat. Cheers Khakibob
If you mean the Federal listing of the koala populations in Qld and NSW, then pretty much all national environmental law requires is that you do not have a significant impact on a threatened species. That's hardly an unreasonable expectation. And if you have a look at what projects are considered under federal law to have a significant impact you will find that they are large/major projects by big business and government (e.g. dams; roads; mines; land subdivision for housing etc), certainly not individual landholders such as farmers doing routine activities on their land. Plus social and economic circumstances are also taken into account in decision-making which is why almost never does any project get rejected, rather mitigation measures may be required. Plus ongoing landuses are exempt under national environment law (e.g. grazing; cropping). The only other things that national listing do is to raise awareness of the problem and drive national recovery and investment. So there is absolutely no need for landholders to be concerned about Federal government protection for koalas. On the other hand hopefully it will force developers and planners to make more effort to avoid key koala habitat.
So you've actually consulted ownwers of native vegetation/regrowth who have been using their native vegetation wisely,such as selective timber cuts once a generation or the occassional browse by livestock? These laws forget the "fact" that if those who share the landscape with wildlife don't see value in it, the outcome for the wildlife is usually poor,no matter what the law or urbanites say. How did these new laws increase the value of potential koala habitat, or the desire to see koalas, for those who actually "own" it? In the few areas where koalas are overabundent,the dogooders can't even come up with effective management policies,so the koalas loose again. No way would I want to see koalas on my land thanks,& I consider myself an active conservationist. Cheers Khakibob
They don't increase value. That's not what the laws are for. They are there to try and stop decline and promote recovery of species heading towards extinction. They are there to try and ensure that threatened species are taken into account in decision making which is otherwise heavily tipped towards economic outcomes. There is also a minority of landholders that do the wrong thing when it comes to threatened species and there is an increasing compliance role under environmental law to try and stop this. However, as mentioned the laws rarely stop economic activity rather try to ensure that biodiversity values are at least taken into account and not lost completely as development and other activities proceed. It's also worth noting that, as per my earlier post, we are agreed on the matter that it would be great to see more positive incentives to assist all landholders to maintain or improve wildlife habitat - noting there are various programs in existence that many switched on landholders are already taking advantage of. The latest big program is the $1 billion Biodiversity Fund, noting it recently supported various koala habitat projects on private land. The NSW Conservation Trust is also co-funding private landholders to protect threatened species including a recent project for 500ha of koala habitat. So rather than seeing it as a negative thing to have threatened species like koalas on their property, there are existing opportunities that are available to help landholders to protect biodiversity assets.
