How secure are unique biological processes under the traditional systems of reserves, where use limits are applied and changed to address the unique threats in an area. Lock up and lock out appears to be is a simple way to avoid long term environmental impact and increase biodiversity, but does it work? Experienced ecosystems observers say interference is " not all bad", sighting some of our oldest National Parks where biodiversity has decreased because of closure. Management and use is not all
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Who needs help ? Jon Feine ABC radio host Melb is happy to spend public radio time chasing funding for the VNPA? as a result of the "enormous burden of their administrative costs" a figure of $80000 was mentioned ( per State?) . Lots of community groups don't get anything, let alone a group whose blinkered view of "community" means imposing one generations view of what should happen in the future. We are supposed to believe that their "one way"( equals our way?) is to ditch the sound tested system of leasing because is " not secure enough? " when its clearly a lot more flexible than imposing one generations idea of whats right with the DMP. What's wrong with a lease ?- you don't trust your grandchildren?
Why should the Feds fund the impractical greens - they get mostly what they want anyway? What do the greens really want in their campaign to "save Point Nepean?'? Do they know yet? Do they want us to pull down everything and keep out everybody but walkers? If they are agreed about the future need , what does their research say is the best way to allow public control into the future? Maybe Nick and Jon and David Kemp would like to blog on why long leases are impractical , why leases aren't good enough for the very bright greens , how their organisation is representative , but can't get enough supporters ? Why they can run campaigns on our radio stations, but still need federal government help to do so / we'll send em an invite eh ! <
Why should the Feds fund the impractical greens - they get mostly what they want anyway? What do the greens really want in their campaign to "save Point Nepean?'? Do they know yet? Do they want us to pull down everything and keep out everybody but walkers? If they are agreed about the future need , what does their research say is the best way to allow public control into the future? Maybe Nick and Jon and David Kemp would like to blog on why long leases are impractical , why leases aren't good enough for the very bright greens , how their organisation is representative , but can't get enough supporters ? Why they can run campaigns on our radio stations, but still need federal government help to do so / we'll send em an invite eh ! <
