WHAT should the Australian Federal Government be
supporting to make the sustainability
1. Accreditation for Environmental Risk assessors .
2. Set up a Rural Defence Association (Like MDA ( ABCTV) to encourage Environmental Risk assessors to more effectively resist the noisy quacks and myopic specialists now raking in work that’s quick fix (and unclear in the big picture stakes) .
Set up a Rural Defence Association to
avoid simple rhetoric and stupidity over one of the most challenging and
important jobs in
4. Start believing in the team again, or the waste and confusion will get worse .There is no other way to efficiently get “No fear, no favor” but to recognize the need to cultivate the devil we used to know - independent scientific thought INSIDE governments.
· Market talk will continue to degrade the status of government . No one believes industry when they stand up and speak on their own ,SO there is no balance while the Government ignore the need for independent advice , freely given .
Market doesn’t respect
the right things . Any impression that the
market will make a sound environmental decision ( the
current theory) fails to accept the basic difference between capital investment
in the man made and the investment inherited from nature – you can risk the
former to make a profit, but not the
later and we much, much less how to “ control it” and therefore the dam
· More certainty and less expense for investors The huge waste and growth of resources that is needed to keep nimby’s at bay can be rapidly curtailed by adopting the above measures .
· Less confusion and taxpayer funded adventures .It would reduce confusion and all this change over method of “getting a result “. Instead of funding non professionals and wavering in their commitment about their role in ways to providing such support. ( Abandon attempts to privatize it, hand it over to groups etc )
· Question : Why do a degree in ecosystems study and environmental health care when you can join a green or other group and get all you want in terms of being listened to
A predictable environment for Investors.Nimbyism is rife and encour
· Reduced duplication : With 4 or 5 bodies responsible for water quality in some states, guess whose responsible?
· Stability and future focused . Responsible and accountable defence systems are imperative for those who take risks . cf handouts
· Urgent to stabilize the credibility of environmental dollar expenditure .No body exits to test for quacks, rough surgery and expensive pills Let’s be the first to do it in the world!.
· If you want to know why this is so important and essential please write to me J.Modra care of email@example.com
“Integral to a more effective process, as we see
Please advise us of any errors or lack of clarity in the content.
Our Parks is a
country based grass roots organization established in the summer of 2003 in
The outrage began with the breaking of an agreement and the imposition of an ideologically driven model of resource protection on a few rural Victorians. These custodians were told they could no longer conduct one of the most sustainable industries in that State- and why? Silence
This failure to take a practical and long term view of big picture natural systems was also highlighted by the way in which leaders near the Nation’s Capital in that summer allowed its people to be exposed to very high risk. It is understandable that, because of the complexity of natural systems, public focus is often only on one part of the story, or the cycle. The problem for affected people and our heritage is that if the “quick fixers” try to protect what is robust and then for whatever reason ignore what is sensitive, the people will get burned; all the “protection” effort will be wasted. Sound conservation is ultimately about prediction and prevention and only those capable of predicting actual risks should be listened to about imperatives.. Our Parks believe it is reasonable to listen to the urgent and enthusiastic voices of green activists about some very important matters. What is not acceptable is for governments to hastily act on any still moving imperatives and myopic focus promoted with those ideals.
What shade of green are we?
Study our website and find out!
Clue: We are many – biodiversity at work?
Are we against National Parks ?
Our Parks is not
against the formation of new National parks. We affirm the role of precision in
decision making at all levels. Our Parks
supporters recognize that National Parks are often more popular than they are
now practical, and that some education about that is necessary for biodiversity
and risk protection.
We reject the use of National parks as a vehicle for ideologically driven lock ups and myopic preservation theories. See website for updates and details.
It is clear that big picture conservationists , whatever the particular arguments for , or against specific management techniques and controls, are not at all convinced about the wisdom of attempting to manage large areas of fire prone land adjacent to private land in that way.
Join us and the silent majority of custodians, critical observers and professional students of this complex world so that we can, together make more credible long term decisions that actually protect our National heritage and people.
Why the name “Our Parks” then?
The “Our Parks” idea is specifically intended to say that most large public land areas must be managed.. We regard multiple use and man
Natural systems and processes do not see our artificially imposed boundaries, so why make a big deal about the permanence of these anthropocentric driven boundaries in public land at all!!
See website for discussion on precise situations and current links to private and leased land control issues as well.
What do we think concerned conservation citizens should know?
1. The difference between a preservationist and a conservationist
2. National parks can limit the freedom of the people shown in Table 1. While this may be acceptable where risk and damage pressures are significant, we do not accept that such restrictions on reserves are widely needed outside concentrated activity areas.
3. Exaggerated risk claims are promoted by government at great risk to rural investors . How you say? Unnecessarily speculative and incomplete argument is far too often conducted at high cost and risk of failure to risk takers . Successive Victorian Governments leaders, instead of helping here, have been avoiding their responsibilities to adjudicate big picture issues , encouraging the system of review to be snowed under with consultants reports and other means of duck shoving its critical role in big picture risk assessment . Governments should have a vision to rule more efficiently on issues of genuine risk to its constituents and their projects. By knowing when the debate is being distorted , or likely to be , its officers can nip the nimby problem in the bud. Citizens would then feel less threatened and more confident in governments role, with the added benefits of less unknown outcomes, (instead of having to wait till after appeal, for example) and at least being able to get on with designing a use without having to substantiate everything about the environment in which their business or activity is located : or wait to find out if “the neighbours know more than they do” or have more rights?. See “Not In My BackYard”
rights. Our forefathers fought for the right of each
generation to/choose /change the use of reserves for public purposes only. This
principle has been established for hundreds of years and has worked well (
What can you do?
A number of petitions and letters are circulating and on the website. Send us your email address and we will keep you informed and involved. Ask questions!
Beyond the devastation
is the tiny seed and rain falling
Beyond that again is the renewed forest
Integral to a more effective
process, as we see it, in
Known methods that are falling into disrepute can then act firmly and efficiently against exploitation, excessive risk taking, unjust and incomplete prosecution cases.
Links to other Land management issues.