Radicalisation and biodiversity – not necessarily mutually exclusive

Last week the federal government launched its ‘Living safe together’ campaign. The campaign has attracted some publicity, criticism and derision in social media.  Attracting the most criticism is a booklet  titled ‘Preventing violent extremism and radicalisation in Australia’ , in particular a fictitious case study about ‘Karen’.

According to the booklet, Karen’s issues began when she left home to go to university, where she gets involved in the alternative music scene, student politics and left-wing activism. After a while she dropped out of Uni and joined a ‘forest camp’. The goal of the forest camp was to disrupt logging activities through barricades, spiking trees, sabotaging machinery etc. No one was hurt but Karen was becoming more removed from proper non caring society. Eventually she decides to go back to uni and now works  ‘towards developing a sustainable solution using the legal system’.

Exactly how one can use the legal system to achieve sustainable solution isn’t specified, because the Regional Forest Agreements exclude third party rights to legal redress.

Receiving  somewhat less publicity, a coalition of conservation groups attended the NSW parliament last Thursday week to present their ‘New deal for nature’ proposal. The aim being to encourage the NSW government to incorporate the 10 components of the proposal into the new Biodiversity Conservation Act. While the event was apparently well attended, the only apparent  publicity was in the Sydney Morning Herald last Thursday, indicating ChipBusters Noel Plumb had been denied entry, due to his radical ‘save our south coast koala’ t-shirt.

The conservation coalition has proposed returning democratic rights in the’ new deal for nature’ proposal, but I expect it will be a bit like Noel’s t shirt for the government,  a bit radical.

rad wombat

Back in south east NSW the ABC reported on a review of wild dog/dingo management for the Local Land Services(LLS). The review was undertaken by  National Parks and Wildlife Service manager Tim Shepherd who has ’15 years experience battling the region’s wild dog problem’. The review was prompted by concerns that the move to the LLS had reduced the effectiveness of wild dog control.Some may recall Mr Shepherd put himself offside a bit by undertaking a fuel reduction burn on a day of total fire ban some years back.

According to Mr Shepherd ” . . . We had a successful planning process in place which was nil tenure which was supported by the rural community”. His proposal is to reinstate a “wild dog coordinator in order to better deliver wild dog management to landholders.”

The ‘nil tenure’ idea is what the OE&H, FCNSW and EPA  proposed for the 1080 fox/ dog baiting program but it hasn’t occurred. If successful planning was in place dogs, foxes and cats would be treated as separate management issues and the aforementioned agencies would be required to work with local landholders, rather than each doing their own, ineffective thing.

As for the wombat, it too was a bit radical,having torn the fence apart on several occasions at one location, some 20 metres away from the gate in the photo. Thankfully it has seen the light, because the log that I eventually put down to discourage it, is too big for it to move.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: