Our Lands is a country
based grass roots organization established in the summer of 2002-3 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?
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. 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 and Our Lands 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 if actual
biodiversity and risk protection is to really happen.
We reject the use of National parks as a vehicle for ideologically driven lock ups and myopic preservation theories. .
It is clear that big picture conservationists , whatever the particular arguments for , or against specific man
What you can do .
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. Read our submission or request letters or quotes .
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 LINKS 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.
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 NIMBY “Not In My Back Yard”
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 this and linked website. Send us your email address and we will keep you informed and involved. Ask questions!
Avoid the myopic, the quick fix and the short term view -------- and get into the BIG PICTURE
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. Email:
Please advise us of any errors or lack of clarity in the content