Yes its all a bit sad zosterops. The comments below the article are pertinent. I also think, in my uneducated and unscientific way, that there should be greater concentration on fencing corridors rather than "square" areas. Particularly along the entire length of natural watercourses. In the driest continent on earth, all waterways are precious and should be given WIDE protection, not like, for example, in Queensland where landholders are allowed to buy and farm properties right up to the banks of creeks and where land on the margins of watercourses is zoned residential without regard for wildlife habitat and future water quality. We have a responsibility to keep and treasure our natural heritage for the benefit of future generations. The fastest way to turn watercourses into polluted drains is to allow free, unfettered human development and access. And when they are lost, they are lost forever. Unless those swindled future generations have the will and huge resources necessary to try and reclaim them.
I agree with you, Night Parrot, on the need to have fenced corridors between substantial areas of native vegetation. Corridors play a valuable part in enabling the dispersal of plant & wildlife species, particularly when during & after severe events such as bushfires & floods.
Fencing to protect our wildlife, particularly our vulnerable species, is important but, as with so many environmental issues, an integrated approach involving a variety of approaches usually produces the best results. Fencing is costly, of course, but very seldom do we account for the full costs of the environmental destruction we so willingly foist upon our landscapes. Consequently, there is a huge distortion when we assess the costs & benefits of preserving or destroying our wildlife.
It's curious that we're easily able to bring about the extinction of our native wildlife but we hestitate vigorously when it comes to bringing about the extinction in Australia of introduced, feral animals.
I also find it curious that we spend huge amounts of money on protecting one species, Homo sapiens, but, by comparison, very little on protecting a large variety of native species. And this at a time of slowly growing awareness that the one species, Homo sapiens, is dependent for its long term survival on biodiversity.
Fences are a problem, not just wildlife enclosures but farms all round Australia. Ground dwelling species like echidna, turtles and lizards are often blocked by fences, often reptiles get trapped in fences and bird netting.
I do wonder if dingoes would be good at keeping down foxes and cats, they have been around for a long time and their displacement from most of NSW and Victoria must have been a big upheavel. I can't imagine farmers wanting dingoes to run wild.
Yes, Greg. The politics of expanding the dingo range would be a minefield, to say the least. But we've driven ourselves to this point because of our attitude towards our wildlife. My impression is that there is slowly growing awareness of the parlous position in which we've placed our widllife with many species already extinct & many more on the brink. There is a cost involved in wildlife & natural habitat destruction which has yet to be accounted for but when it eventually is the tensions within the body politic are likely to increase significantly.
Yes its all a bit sad zosterops. The comments below the article are pertinent. I also think, in my uneducated and unscientific way, that there should be greater concentration on fencing corridors rather than "square" areas. Particularly along the entire length of natural watercourses. In the driest continent on earth, all waterways are precious and should be given WIDE protection, not like, for example, in Queensland where landholders are allowed to buy and farm properties right up to the banks of creeks and where land on the margins of watercourses is zoned residential without regard for wildlife habitat and future water quality. We have a responsibility to keep and treasure our natural heritage for the benefit of future generations. The fastest way to turn watercourses into polluted drains is to allow free, unfettered human development and access. And when they are lost, they are lost forever. Unless those swindled future generations have the will and huge resources necessary to try and reclaim them.
I agree with you, Night Parrot, on the need to have fenced corridors between substantial areas of native vegetation. Corridors play a valuable part in enabling the dispersal of plant & wildlife species, particularly when during & after severe events such as bushfires & floods.
Fencing to protect our wildlife, particularly our vulnerable species, is important but, as with so many environmental issues, an integrated approach involving a variety of approaches usually produces the best results. Fencing is costly, of course, but very seldom do we account for the full costs of the environmental destruction we so willingly foist upon our landscapes. Consequently, there is a huge distortion when we assess the costs & benefits of preserving or destroying our wildlife.
It's curious that we're easily able to bring about the extinction of our native wildlife but we hestitate vigorously when it comes to bringing about the extinction in Australia of introduced, feral animals.
I also find it curious that we spend huge amounts of money on protecting one species, Homo sapiens, but, by comparison, very little on protecting a large variety of native species. And this at a time of slowly growing awareness that the one species, Homo sapiens, is dependent for its long term survival on biodiversity.
Fences are a problem, not just wildlife enclosures but farms all round Australia. Ground dwelling species like echidna, turtles and lizards are often blocked by fences, often reptiles get trapped in fences and bird netting.
I do wonder if dingoes would be good at keeping down foxes and cats, they have been around for a long time and their displacement from most of NSW and Victoria must have been a big upheavel. I can't imagine farmers wanting dingoes to run wild.
Yes, Greg. The politics of expanding the dingo range would be a minefield, to say the least. But we've driven ourselves to this point because of our attitude towards our wildlife. My impression is that there is slowly growing awareness of the parlous position in which we've placed our widllife with many species already extinct & many more on the brink. There is a cost involved in wildlife & natural habitat destruction which has yet to be accounted for but when it eventually is the tensions within the body politic are likely to increase significantly.