Victorian Red Gum Wetlands

[fullmetaljacket]

just thought I'd open this one up for disscussion.

Wilderness society victoria are proposing to turn the crown land and state forrests (correct me if I'm wrong) from Barma State forrest to Mildura into national parks. Which in turn will mean that:- no dogs, no hunting, no wood collection, no solid fuel fires, no motor bikes, and camping permits a must. Beside a huge loss of economy in the small towns along the river that are hugly based around the timber industry (koondrook/barahm to name one) it will affect everyone that goes to these great places to enjoy the river. They are also proposing to "buy back" water from irrigation farmers to flood feed the gums and other flora......with what water?....fresh water that could be used in every household form Echuca to Adelaide?

here's the first link I found
The Wilderness Society - River Red Gums urgently need your help (http://www.wilderness.org.au/regions/vic/red-gum-submissions/)

open for disscussion......both for and against

[Unsane]

Its great to see more conservation topics being started. And by conservation I mean people who use, respect and love the bush - not greenie yellow backed do-gooders - who initiate changes such as this.

Check out a great group of volunteers at Push for the Bush (http://pushforthebush.org/) who are working hard on the political front to protect rural values.

Now, I know many will praise national parks, but I can't stand them. Fees for nothing. Thats right. You only pay so people can check you have paid.

I cant remember a good national park. I avoid them. I refuse to double pay for OUR land.

Give me a state forest anyday. Where at least you can wonder of a hard gravel trail and go see and experience all it has to offer.

I have spent a lot of time in Barmah State Forest doing all kinds of activities. We go shooting there, we report pest plants, we fish, camp, we clean up the sleeper makers scraps for fire wood. We see roos, emus, pigs, rabbits, hares, foxes, brumby horses, cattle - it quite wonderful. We head into Picola and Nathalia and buy the places out of beer etc.

Places in regions like this depend on travellers, and especially depend on the forest an asset that is manged and sustainable. It is current state the forest is sustainable. With a national park it will end up restricted and not inviting.

The do-gooders complain of heritage trees. Well some of biggest tress there are only that big as they have had no immediate competition. How so? Many years ago, loggers and farmers cut down the trees surounding them. So, the ones left in the open had all the water and nutrients. So much for heritage.

I am completely sick of the greens party and labor ruining this states bush land.

How is locking up bush land saving it? How do people look after it then? Oh thats right, we let it burn. Wild bushfires fix it. Another topic all together, but its another example of National parks incompetance.

This type of additude has to change - or soon enough the only place you will be able to 4WD, camp for free and have a fire, cut up fallen wood, motor bike, etc, will be on private propery or fun parks like landcruiser park.

Its a real shame. Our kids will hate us for letting this happen.

[Unsane]

One other thing of interest.

"A 2003 CSIRO study for the Australian Greenhouse Office showed that firewood produces the least amount of carbon dioxide of all heating energy sources."


"This is because in sustainably managed forests, growing trees absorb the same amount of carbon dioxide that is released when firewood is burnt. There are some other greenhouse gas emissions associated with burning firewood and with its transport, but it is practically a carbonneutral system."

So get that into ya you anti wood greenies.

from: http://www.firewood.asn.au/Greenhouse%20Benefits%20A4%20070614.pdf

Firewood Association of Australia : General Information (http://www.firewood.asn.au/generalInformation.html)

[gofour]

yes i believe that this is right the bush runs runs along my home town and their is only the golf cource between me and the bush

[fullmetaljacket]

"This is because in sustainably managed forests, growing trees absorb the same amount of carbon dioxide that is released when firewood is burnt. There are some other greenhouse gas emissions associated with burning firewood and with its transport, but it is practically a carbonneutral system."

So get that into ya you anti wood greenies.


damn right, and the government are selling carbon credits to other countries - whats the differance between that and Australia burning loads of fossil fuels for heating and power, it all ends up in the same place and still affects everyone!

great spot over Shep area too gofour!

[Marc 1]

damn right, and the government are selling carbon credits to other countries - whats the differance between that and Australia burning loads of fossil fuels for heating and power, it all ends up in the same place and still affects everyone!

great spot over Shep area too gofour!

You do realise that when we dig up the coal or tap the oil we are introducing carbon that was otherwise locked away underground into the air. Whereas trees are carbon neutral, they grow, they lock away carbon as wood, where it is re-released either by burning or when the wood decays.

[luxa]

Not sure if I agree with the "National Park" policies, but Barmah needs to be protected.

It is the largest Red Gum forest in the world - that we take for granted by logging, grazing and managing the water so that it no longer floods - a natural process that insures the life of the Redgum.

Have a look next time your there - there is no regeneration, as there has been almost no regular flooding!!
The red gum forest is dying - so the likelihood of our kids, and there kids enjoying the forest isn't all that good !!!

I'm no greenie - but recongnise there needs to be a balance found somewhere between the 2 extremes !!!

Luxa

[fullmetaljacket]

You do realise that when we dig up the coal or tap the oil we are introducing carbon that was otherwise locked away underground into the air. Whereas trees are carbon neutral, they grow, they lock away carbon as wood, where it is re-released either by burning or when the wood decays.

yea I realise that.....what I was getting at is the government is selling credits (plantation areas - or specifically the clean air that they produce) to "other" countrys so they can produce more carbon, why not keep the credits to ourselves, expand our developments.........

luxa:- agree 100% with you but we need water first, then they could coincider it

[Marc 1]

yea I realise that.....what I was getting at is the government is selling credits (plantation areas - or specifically the clean air that they produce) to "other" countrys so they can produce more carbon, why not keep the credits to ourselves, expand our developments....

Because we don't trade carbon credits here. That's what a large proportion of the hot air is about between the pollies in Canberra - the need for a carbon trading scheme here in Australia. So, land is cheap here in Australia, a large multinational country located somewhere where land is scarce and expensive wants to emit more carbon, so they buy carbon credits here to offset their use.

I kinda think of it as just another export - in this case a foreign company is paying Australians to plant and maintain a forest, and here's the best bit - we don't actually ship anything overseas! At best we send a piece of paper (or more correctly probably a string of 1's and 0's via computer) out of the country. Thanks! Nice!:thumb:

[fullmetaljacket]

Because we don't trade carbon credits here. That's what a large proportion of the hot air is about between the pollies in Canberra - the need for a carbon trading scheme here in Australia

my bad Marc......I was under the usumption that they had already started the carbon credit scheme

[luxa]

Another problem with our mismanagement.

The wetlands of Barmah, the stagnant waters that once would have been considered Billabongs - are left for years and years without the annual flushing that was natural before we started Fuc*king with things. Have a look at the waterline on the older trees that make up the forest.

The stagnant water becomes shallow, devoid of oxygen and landbound Murray Cod, crays etc die. The tannins from the eucalypt leaves in the water build up to the point the water becomes a syrup of natural toxins.

Then what do we do years later - flood the forest in the name of natural management. Wash all the toxic shit into the main river stream, and watch all the Murray Cod float belly up, all the Murray Crays crawl out of the water to be picked up by scavengers - or remain in the water and die from the toxic water or oxygen deprivation that follows.

Yeah Yeah - I sound like a greenie, let me have it....
I also 4wd, Camp, Hike, Fish, Hunt..... and have a degree in Zoology.

We tend to manage the environment based firstly on our priorities, and then those of the environment and natural ecosystem.

IMO - we need to start managing the environment and its ecosystems, and then fit our management practices - including recreation. If this means restricting access to some areas so that they continue to exist - so be it......

NOTE - I said restricting, NOT excluding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Luxa

[Unsane]

Another problem with our mismanagement.

The wetlands of Barmah, the stagnant waters that once would have been considered Billabongs - are left for years and years without the annual flushing that was natural before we started Fuc*king with things. Have a look at the waterline on the older trees that make up the forest.

The stagnant water becomes shallow, devoid of oxygen and landbound Murray Cod, crays etc die. The tannins from the eucalypt leaves in the water build up to the point the water becomes a syrup of natural toxins.

Then what do we do years later - flood the forest in the name of natural management. Wash all the toxic shit into the main river stream, and watch all the Murray Cod float belly up, all the Murray Crays crawl out of the water to be picked up by scavengers - or remain in the water and die from the toxic water or oxygen deprivation that follows.

Yeah Yeah - I sound like a greenie, let me have it....
I also 4wd, Camp, Hike, Fish, Hunt..... and have a degree in Zoology.

We tend to manage the environment based firstly on our priorities, and then those of the environment and natural ecosystem.

IMO - we need to start managing the environment and its ecosystems, and then fit our management practices - including recreation. If this means restricting access to some areas so that they continue to exist - so be it......

NOTE - I said restricting, NOT excluding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Luxa

Well said. I am all for it.

If only the management plans were based on the ecosystems, and not some do-gooders' opinion.

[marvic]

I've been going to Barmah for about 40 years now, mother lived there until recently.
Its not the bush it used to be back then, there has been a lot of changes that have happened over the years and the yearly flooding stopped years ago.
These floods used to flush the forest, Miora Lakes and the Narrows system and the bush always looked healthy in both Barmah forest and the Miora Forest too.
With the Murry water system at the moment and with Bendigo, Ballarat, Melbourne and the irrigators getting some of the Goulburn water from now on it's not going to improve any time soon.

[geko104]

Another problem with our mismanagement.

The wetlands of Barmah, the stagnant waters that once would have been considered Billabongs - are left for years and years without the annual flushing that was natural before we started Fuc*king with things. Have a look at the waterline on the older trees that make up the forest.

The stagnant water becomes shallow, devoid of oxygen and landbound Murray Cod, crays etc die. The tannins from the eucalypt leaves in the water build up to the point the water becomes a syrup of natural toxins.

Then what do we do years later - flood the forest in the name of natural management. Wash all the toxic shit into the main river stream, and watch all the Murray Cod float belly up, all the Murray Crays crawl out of the water to be picked up by scavengers - or remain in the water and die from the toxic water or oxygen deprivation that follows.

Yeah Yeah - I sound like a greenie, let me have it....
I also 4wd, Camp, Hike, Fish, Hunt..... and have a degree in Zoology.

We tend to manage the environment based firstly on our priorities, and then those of the environment and natural ecosystem.

IMO - we need to start managing the environment and its ecosystems, and then fit our management practices - including recreation. If this means restricting access to some areas so that they continue to exist - so be it......

NOTE - I said restricting, NOT excluding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Luxa

X2 here

Not an easy problem to fix.

[haveago]

If you flood the forest,who pays for the water,and where will they get if from.They are talking about using the equivelant of Lake Eilddon to flood it every five years.At a cost estimated between 3-5 billion dollars every 5 years.Build another dam maybe,bullshit.It will cost jobs also.The VEAC proposal has even bought into question it's own findings.They cannot say where the water will come from,nor how they propose to do it.To close this land down into National Parks will ruin the area.Have we forgotten how well our National Parks are managed now.They also propose to give the land back to the original owners(read Aboriginal ownership).They have been denied land claims on this area for years,because they cannot prove their previous ownership of the area,pre-settlement.They would be allowed to hunt,collect firewood,camp anywhere and do almost anything on this land,while tourists would be made to tow the line(no hunting,camping,firewood collection to name just a few).A form of racism maybe.VEAC plans to take this land of us,and lock it up.Camp only in designated areas,and pay for the priveledge.Where do you camp when it is flooded with water we don't have,payed for by the tax payer.Read the full proposal like I have,and you will soon realise that it is about more than just a few trees.It is the right of bush users to be able to access crown land,for recreational use.

[luxa]

Can't say I've read the document. regardless of what we choose to call Barmah - It needs to be managed better.

As for the water crap (from the proposal - not you Haveago!!) I think its bullshit. We took the water from flooding the forest in the first place, as a natural occurance. We dam it up and regulate its flows to suit commercial needs etc etc..... Then we complain that it will cost to replicate what was a natural occurance ?

The Flood water mostly returns to the river anyway - so in effect the only water that is "used" is that which evaporates, or becomes landlocked in Billabongs etc... the water that returns can be allocated to irrigators downstream.

As for the rights of bush users - sometimes they will have to come second to the ecological management of some natural places, otherwise when our kids grow up to become the "bush users" there may well be no natural bush left.
I'm a bush user, and have no real problem with this - provided it is based on sound management principles and not the usual bias towards 4x4ers, hunters and bush users in general.

Luxa

Please note I'm not saying that making a National Park is the answer (just hope they don't make a Wilderness area!!!!).

[haveago]

I agree with what you say luxa,and I also would like to see the area managed to a more sustainable level.Read the proposal,and you will get a better idea of why I have submitted my objection to it.I am yet to hunt ducks up that way,but would like to enjoy the experiance.

[nilla60]

Saw this URL Rivers and Red Gum Environment Alliance (http://www.rrgea.org) in one of my other magazines, the site states that the recommendaions include:
- Restricted access (fishing, 4x4, boating, camping, hunting, campfires)
- 23 game reserves closed
- 5 new National Parks
- grazing banned
- 90% reduction in redgum cutting
- flooding every 5 years (probably the main thing the forsts actually need IMHO)

If you live in the area (or within cooee), make yourself and your concerns known to the powers that be. Once measures are put in place to keep you out, history shows you have sweet FA chance of getting your historic access back.

[Unsane]

Saw this URL Rivers and Red Gum Environment Alliance (http://www.rrgea.org) in one of my other magazines, the site states that the recommendaions include:
- Restricted access (fishing, 4x4, boating, camping, hunting, campfires)
- 23 game reserves closed
- 5 new National Parks
- grazing banned
- 90% reduction in redgum cutting
- flooding every 5 years (probably the main thing the forsts actually need IMHO)

If you live in the area (or within cooee), make yourself and your concerns known to the powers that be. Once measures are put in place to keep you out, history shows you have sweet FA chance of getting your historic access back.

I got the same from another publication, including a sticker.

It is time we did something about Barmah, and that doesn't include turning it into a National Park. Some fine tuning of the management and then we can all enjoy for ever.

[ott]

im also like to say that everyone complains about there being no water,maybe if there wasnt millions of human beings,the scum of the earth,using up the water there would be more for the bush.