Taronga Zoo corroboree frog breeding at Taronga

boof

boof

Well-Known Member
20+ year member
Last Monday i attended the Illawarra Herp society monthly meeting after not attending for a few years due to my work. Anyway the guest speaker was Mick McFadden from the reptile section at Taronga. He gave a great talk about the current in situ and ex situ programs for the southern corroboree frog. I would just like to say I was amazed by the program and the work that is being done by these dedicated people to save this great little frog. I tried to ask him some questions at the end of the night but he was surrounded by other people so I missed out on talking to him. I had a heap of questions about the reptile departments future plans at taronga.
 
The Corroborree Frog program is a great success story for zoos in general and Taronga in particular. As also was Melbourne's great work in maintaining frogs from Hong Kong harbour and returning them [and more] once the airport extensions had been completed.

Which makes me cranky that our zoos did not offer to do something similar for the Mary River turtle and thus allow a desperately needed dam to be constructed in Queensland.

That, to me, would be real practical, hands on, charity begins at home, conservation.
 
Steve Robinson said:
Which makes me cranky that our zoos did not offer to do something similar for the Mary River turtle and thus allow a desperately needed dam to be constructed in Queensland.
Click to expand...

well now thats a contentious issue there steve.

dams don't make more water... ;)
 
phoenix said:
well now thats a contentious issue there steve.

dams don't make more water... ;)
Click to expand...

But more humans USE more water.

And our government's alternative to the dam is to build a mega-expensive to build and operate desalination plant.

I reckon that the eventually released Mary River turtles would have loved the huge new home that the slow moving [their preferred type] waters of the dam would have provided.

And it's carbon footprint would be nothing like what the desalination plant will be.
 
correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't a dam just allow you to take more water from the river system?

so the river actually gets less water flowing through it. thats not good for the health of the river.
 
The site for this proposed dam was very close to the mouth of the river.

No dam means that the water will now flow that extra little distance into the sea and then be drawn at great financial and environmental cost into Ms Bligh's desalination plant.

I'm struggling to see the sense in that. However, it will help to shore up the Green's preferences for both Anna and Kevin.
 
Steve Robinson said:
The site for this proposed dam was very close to the mouth of the river.

No dam means that the water will now flow that extra little distance into the sea and then be drawn at great financial and environmental cost into Ms Bligh's desalination plant.

I'm struggling to see the sense in that. However, it will help to shore up the Green's preferences for both Anna and Kevin.
Click to expand...

Not for Anna because she was all for the dam.
 
i couldn't care less who they preference these days.

whilst i'm not necessarily referring to any recent statements - it does strike me as odd that a forum of self-proclaimed conservationists seems so often champing at the bit to have a dig at the greens - yet we'll happily accept all manner of garbage from the other two major parties.

i really don't understand how anyone in the apparent conservation business wouldn't consider them an overwhelmingly positive force in the fight to preserve the environment and move to a sustainable future. :confused:
 
phoenix said:
i couldn't care less who they preference these days.

whilst i'm not necessarily referring to any recent statements - it does strike me as odd that a forum of self-proclaimed conservationists seems so often champing at the bit to have a dig at the greens - yet we'll happily accept all manner of garbage from the other two major parties.

i really don't understand how anyone in the apparent conservation business wouldn't consider them an overwhelmingly positive force in the fight to preserve the environment and move to a sustainable future. :confused:
Click to expand...

Well I'm quite happy to state that I vote only for the Greens but I'm not saying that they are perfect either, just the best of the bunch re the enviroment. And often I don't agree with the sentiments of certain Green members.
 
phoenix said:
i couldn't care less who they preference these days.

whilst i'm not necessarily referring to any recent statements - it does strike me as odd that a forum of self-proclaimed conservationists seems so often champing at the bit to have a dig at the greens - yet we'll happily accept all manner of garbage from the other two major parties.

i really don't understand how anyone in the apparent conservation business wouldn't consider them an overwhelmingly positive force in the fight to preserve the environment and move to a sustainable future. :confused:
Click to expand...

I should have known that I'd regret making a political dig!!

For the record - I believe none of them all the way. I'm often tempted to vote for that "Informal" party.;)

A certain conservationist up here was heard to say that the best vote for the environment was to vote for the Nats on the basis that they don't care about it so they leave it alone. The ALP and the Greens "care" about it so they interfere with it and bugger it up in the process.

That "Informal" party is looking even better!:D
 
Steve Robinson said:
Sorry boof. We've taken your thread way off track and have learnt nothing about Taronga's reptile plans.
Click to expand...

That's OK steve. Threads like this one, where some of the longer term members have half hearted and good natured digs at one another are more exciting to read and far more entertaining then Tarongas frogs anyway. :):D
 
jay said:
Well I'm quite happy to state that I vote only for the Greens but I'm not saying that they are perfect either, just the best of the bunch re the enviroment. And often I don't agree with the sentiments of certain Green members.
Click to expand...


The greens may say they want to protect the envoronment but their methods are dubeous. I live near the Murray River and we have large areas of Red Gum forests which are healthy due to human managment, mainly thinning. I have heard Red gum forests now cover 95% to 150% of the area they covered pre white settlment. The Red Gum forests which have been in National parks for years are dead and dieing, while around here the managed forests are healthy. Only a small % are logged and all trees above a certain circumferance or which contain hollows are protected. Logging of the smaller trees keeps the habitat trees alive in the drought and provides a reduced fire threat, as Red Gums dont survive a hot fire. Native animals are thriving. the populations of Koalas, Sugar Gliders and Supurb parrots have increased, but the greens want to make this area a national park. I do not think they are doing this to help the environment, but to keep people out of it.

This is one example of their poor policies based on keeping people out of the environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top