Australian Biodiversity Crisis

[zooboy28]

Australia's conservation success seems to be declining, and with it a number of threatened species. The new conservative government has a fairly anti-environment stance, and there have been a number of very worrying developments so far this year:

-Culling sharks in Western Australia: http://www.zoochat.com/65/controversy-over-western-australia-shark-cull-354598/

-Dumping dredging on the Great Barrier Reef : http://www.zoochat.com/65/australian-government-appoves-plan-dump-dredged-353913/

-Recently, the government announced its intention to remove 74,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest from World Heritage Area so it can be logged, and the prime minister has stated that "We have quite enough national parks. We have quite enough locked up forests already. In fact, in an important respect, we have too much locked up forest." See more details here: Tony Abbott says too much Tasmanian forest 'locked up', forms new council to support timber industry - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

-And now, top scientists are saying that its no longer feasible to save some species. Full story here, extract below: Scientists resign 'living dead' species to extinction, call for triage debate - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The dramatic ongoing loss of Australian animal and plant species has prompted influential scientists to call on governments to start making tough decisions about which ones to save - and which species should be left to face extinction.

The proposal to triage Australia's unique species comes from some of the nation's most senior conservation biologists.

It is a radical and controversial shift from decades of hard-fought conservation victories aiming to preserve all species and wilderness.

"I'm afraid to tell everybody we're in a terminal situation. We're confronting a whole raft of species about to go over the extinction cliff," Professor David Bowman, an expert in environmental change biology at the University of Tasmania, said.

Professor Corey Bradshaw, director of the Environment Institute's Climate and Ecology Centre at The University of Adelaide, says Kakadu National Park has suffered a 95 per cent decline in mammals.

"Kakadu National Park, our largest national park, is basically a biodiversity basket case," Professor Bradshaw said.

I'm afraid to tell everybody we're in a terminal situation. We're confronting a whole raft of species about to go over the extinction cliff.

"The Great Barrier Reef has been suffering biodiversity declines for decades. Now if we can't get it right in our two biggest and most well-known and certainly the best-funded parks and protected areas in Australia, what hope have we for the rest of our national parks?"

Around Australia at least 100 unique species have already become extinct since European settlement with more than 1,500 under threat, but scientists suspect many more have vanished or are on the brink without anyone realising.

It is a worldwide phenomenon, with global extinction rates of species not seen at this level since the loss of the dinosaurs.

Australia's network of under-resourced national reserves is being overwhelmed, while sprawling urban, agricultural and industrial development, feral animals and climate change are partly to blame, scientists say.

Some believe the current focus on saving all threatened species is misplaced, and say there should be more emphasis on saving the most vital ecosystems and species.

It could mean amending laws mandating recovery plans for all species, according to a senior environmental lawyer.

"The focus on threatened species seems doomed to failure, especially because of climate change," Jeff Smith from the NSW Environmental Defenders Office said.

"We need to be looking at key species that are able to drag ecosystems and other species up by the bootstraps."

Professor Bowman says the difficulty is confronting the notion that not all species are equal.

"If you put in one corner a rare butterfly and in another corner a Tasmanian devil, I have to say as a conservation biologist, that the Tasmanian devil is more important - it's a top predator, it's at the end of an evolutionary lineage, it's charismatic, it's a mammal (and) we can't afford to lose such a thing," he said.

 

[khakibob]

It's a risk abatement plan for sharks in WA not a cull. They might kill 20 a year. Hardly a threatening process or a "cull".

The sediment will be dumped within the the park area, not on or near the reef. Misinformation & sensational claims that it "will be dumped on the reef" just make intelligent folks more sceptical of hype & does little to encourage involvement from the broader community once these truths surface. Sure there is a risk from siltation. So just say "there is a risk from siltation & turbidity" not "they're dumping sediment on the GBR!". People don't like being treated like fools.

As for the forests. The new term is "lock it up & loose it" We have seen torrents of change in the bio diversity in the national parks we have locked up in the last few decades. We clearly need a new paradigm for managing our forests in Aust as the locked up areas have been the source of "feral fires" & a haven for invasive species, whilst areas open for wise use show the highest bio diversity & have "cool fires" which promotes regrowth & biodiversity. Sure there still needs to be protected areas of high value & significance, & the resources should be directed to these, not squandered on lower value areas which have just been created as a political "offset".

As for the "living dead species". National Parks & state & federal govt needs to relax the permits required to keep indigenous animals for a start. There are more than enough good souls out there to at least keep lifeboat populations of most species at their own expense in the short term, until we discover all the threatening processes & try to abate them. The reality is that every species eventually becomes extinct, just not at such a rapid rate as we have seen under protectionist conservation. Our protectionist efforts so far haven't slowed the rate of extinction or ecological change & I'd like to see some new management regimes looked into.

I'm happy with the change of policy. Lets say goodbye to protectionist conservation & hello to the acceptance that humans are part of the ecology of a landscape, we may also belong on the land & that we need to see it as part of our existence, dreaming, well being & also a pantry when well managed. Not valued as an obstacle or with the dread that protectionist conservation causes, especially to those who share the landscape with wildlife & have the most influence upon the rate of change.

Cheers Khakibob