EHP is changing the way crocodiles are managed with a new policy that strikes an improved balance between community safety and crocodile conservation. Photo: EHP
EHP News is the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection’s newsletter.
Issue 3 includes:
Wildlife are affected by an oil spill in Brisbane Monday morning with up to 10 tonnes of oil leaking into the Port of Brisbane, as the culprits face fines of up to $11 million. Oil on the surface of the water at Port of Brisbane. Photo: Seven News
Original story by Kim Stephens at the Brisbane Times
It could take up to a week to clean up a five to 10 tonne oils spill at the Port of Brisbane, Queensland transport minister Scott Emerson said on Monday morning.
Some bird life, including pelicans, have been spotted coated in oil and Department of Environment officers were working to treat the animals, Mr Emerson said.
The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection has since confirmed that four pelicans and one cormorant have come into contact with oil at the site of the spill.
‘‘Plans are being made to attempt to capture the birds,’’ a spokeswoman said in a statement.
"Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service is assisting with marine parks vessels and officers experienced in oiled wildlife recovery.''
Mr Emerson said port authorities believed they had identified the vessel that leaked the oil into the port around midnight on Sunday and hefty fines could apply.
"In terms of the vessel that may be the culprit, they are facing, for individuals, fines of up to $550,000 and if a company, $11 million, as well as the cost cleaning it up," he said.
One the pelicans that came into contact with the oil spill at Brisbane's port. Photo: Steve Hoseck NPRSR
The slick is confined to a 1400 metre stretch along the wharf and marine and port authorities have put booms in place to contain it.
"It is heavy oil, we will see some evaporation as the sun comes out but because it is heavy oil, booms are containing the spill and skimmers will try to lift it up," he said.
Mr Emerson said the scheduled arrival of the USS George Washington at the port today - visiting Brisbane as part of the joint Australian and US training Operation Talisman-Sabre - would not be interrupted.
"Given the oil is contained to the wharf, not the channel, that won't be impacted," he said.
However, there could be some minor delays to commercial wharf ships, a Maritime Safety Queensland spokesman said earlier.
Staff at the Port of Brisbane noticed the slick just after midnight, but were unable to determine the extent of its spread in the dark.
A photo of a pelican covered in oil that was tweeted by Transport Minister Scott Emerson.
Investigations by maritime authorities after sunrise determined the oil spill was relatively small.
"We are still assessing the extent of it but no-one is talking large quantities," the Maritime Safety spokesman said.
"Obviously no-one is happy that any oil is in the water so Maritime Safety will investigate to find the source."
He said both Port of Brisbane and Maritime Safety Queensland workers would work throughout the morning to contain and clean-up the spill.
He said the impact on port traffic was expected to be minimal.
"Obviously we wouldn't want to put a vessel out there, so maybe we are looking at some of the shipping movements," he said.
Water police are assisting with the investigation and clean-up.
There has been an oil spill at the Port of Brisbane. Photo: Michelle Smith
Press release from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol (QBFP) officer Coby Walker said the rules for freshwater fishing in Queensland are different to those for tidal waters, marine parks or other states.
Mary river cod (Maccullochella peelii mariensis). The Mary River cod is a No take species if captured outside of the stocked impoundments. Photo: DAFF
“A number of restrictions apply to freshwater fishing in Queensland to protect fish stocks from overfishing and to ensure the sustainability of Queensland’s waterways,” he said.
“There are limits to the amount, type and ways in which freshwater fishing gear can be used.
“No more than six fishing or set lines alone or in combination can be used per person at any one time. Only one hook, artificial fly or lure can be attached to each line.
“When using a set line, you must stay within 200m of the line at all times. You should also check the set line regularly to allow any undersized or non-target species to be released safely.
“All set lines and traps must be tagged clearly, ensuring the owner’s surname and address is visible,” he said.
Mr Walker said fishers should also be aware of the rules surrounding bait.
“Any bait caught must comply with size and possession limits,” he said.
“The use of freshwater fish and crustaceans, such as spangled perch, redclaw, freshwater prawns and yabbies as bait (dead or alive), is prohibited outside of their natural environment or range. No-take species are also not able to be used as bait.
“Fish caught that are not native to the area must not be returned to the water even as bait. This includes pest fish such as tilapia and carp, which affect native species and marine environments.”
Mr Walker said QBFP officers regularly patrol remote and less frequented areas to ensure fishers are complying with the rules.
“Breaching fishing laws is a serious offence and can attract on-the-spot fines ranging from $110 to $1100 or maximum penalties up to $220,000,” he said.
"We encourage people to report unlawful or suspicious fishing activities by calling the Fishwatch Hotline on 1800 017 116."
For more information on Queensland’s recreational fishing rules visit www.fisheries.qld.gov.au or call 13 25 23.
Follow Fisheries Queensland on Facebook and Twitter (@FisheriesQld).
Media contact: Jodana Anglesey, 3087 8601
Original story by Ben Cubby, Sydney Morning Herald
At risk: Protected wetlands from the Macquarie River to Orange lie in the way of a proposed pipeline. Photo: Andrew Taylor
A pipeline that would pump more than 600 Olympic-sized swimming pools of drinking water a year to Orange, in the state's central west, will rely on water that is essential to sustain an internationally protected wetland, new research says.
The federal and state governments have already committed $38 million to fund the project, which requires digging a 39-kilometre pipeline from the Macquarie River to Orange. The plans have been approved at state level, and a final federal decision on whether to build the pipe is expected within weeks.
But University of NSW researchers say modelling for the plan is wrong and underestimates the impact on the Macquarie Marshes, a waterbird refuge that is listed under the international Ramsar convention.
''The modelling they used assumes there is spare water in the system, when in fact there is none,'' said Professor Richard Kingsford, director of the Australian Wetlands, Rivers and Landscapes Centre. ''It would add greatly to the pressure on environmental flows … which are being paid for by the public, which has invested through buyback of allocations.''
Map showing the proposed 39 km pipeline and the Macquarie Marshes Floodplain.
The dispute centres on tensions between human and environmental use of water, in a region where populations are expected to keep growing even as the climate grows hotter and drier.
The plan says the Macquarie River should be flowing at 108 million litres a day before pumping can start, but the University of NSW research found that the minimum threshold should be 118 million litres.
''We stand by the modelling we have, and it has been peer-reviewed by experts,'' said an Orange council spokesman, Nick Redmond. ''Through the last drought, we were close to a critical level. We were at the point of getting very close to informing some businesses that they could no longer operate because we could no longer supply water.''
The pipeline has passed a review by the NSW Planning Assessment Commission, after some modifications, and the federal assessment is due by August 8.
''Even at the uptake point, we are talking about using 0.28 per cent of the flow of the river,'' Mr Redmond said.
''The fact is we have listened to people who have had concerns about this project.''
The plan has been modified somewhat after the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage said in a submission that ''the sustainability and efficiency of the project is of serious concern''. Up to 70 per cent of the water extracted from the river could be lost to spills and evaporation before it passed through the taps of the people of Orange, it said.
Professor Kingsford's co-author, Justin McCann, said the amendments meant the modified project had to be reviewed again.
"Our modelling identified the pumping thresholds were wrong, which was further supported by a government-commissioned assessment,'' he said.
''What this means is that the approval is based on new thresholds, which have never been properly assessed. The original environmental assessment has underestimated the ecological impact of this development."
By Bob Kearney, University of Canberra at The Conversation
Announcements last week of the escalating damage to the Great Barrier Reef confirm Australia’s most famous and intensely managed Marine Protected Area has not been properly protected. UNESCO’s recent review shows Australia is in danger of becoming the first developed country to have World Heritage Status of an area revoked.
Calling something protected isn’t enough to protect it. AAP Image/Australian Institute for Marine Science
The Government has repeatedly claimed that because Australia has a disproportionate share of the world’s marine parks it leads the world in marine conservation. But does simply having a lot of marine parks mean Australia is doing a good job?
It is increasingly obvious that management within the whole of the protected areas network has been, and remains, inadequate.
This management failure has been made possible by distortion of the principles of both investigative science and evidence-based policy and management. The basic tenets of science, in particular accuracy and precision, and the principles of evidence-based adaptive management, have been subverted by a culture of uncritical promotion of marine parks.
The Australian Government has known for many years that the major man-made causes of damage to the Reef come from land-based activities, predominantly agriculture, mining, inappropriate coastal development and the insidious effects of climate change. But the recent review confirms that even with this knowledge, the Government has failed to manage them.
In reality Australia’s approach to the whole marine parks process – an approach of claiming protection without addressing carefully identified threats – has been inappropriate. It distracts from addressing real problems.
Failures in the interaction between science and management are not entirely by accident or oversight. They have been underpinned by delusion about the level of protection that is actually provided by Australian marine parks.
Internationally, there is a commitment for marine parks to be “Comprehensive, Effectively Managed and Representative”. But the commitment to effectiveness was removed early on in the Australia-specific principle, which calls for a “Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative” system of parks. The difference is telling. “Adequacy” refers to the number and size of parks, not what protection they provide and how effectively they do so.
The internationally accepted definition of the Precautionary Principle has been redefined by Australia specifically for marine parks to mandate that declaration of parks must not be constrained by scientific uncertainty, even if this uncertainty applies to the effectiveness of the parks themselves.
Threats to marine systems have not been properly identified. In fact, marine parks have deliberately not been established to address threats. All four of the goals and thirteen of the fourteen “selection principles” for the national system of marine reserves relate to what is in reserves, not biodiversity conservation, which is primary objective of the system.
Commonwealth marine park performance indicators do not assess whether the park provides biodiversity conservation against all threats, or even any single threat. There is no requirement to evaluate whether the park is providing effective protection. There is therefore no need to commit to appropriate adaptive management. This means governments do not have to provide the resources necessary to adequately manage the most significant threats – in particular those from agriculture and mining – even in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
The Federal Government has systematically exaggerated claims of parks' conservation benefits. Former environment minister Tony Burke made numerous unjustified and misleading assertions that closing areas to extraction represents permanent and even total protection. He avoided acknowledging that most of the major threats, including pollution, are in the form of injection, not extraction.
Exaggerated predictions of fisheries benefits have been based on underestimating decreases in catches due to area closures and unrealistic assumptions of net benefit from the export of fish from closed areas.
By not basing its management of marine environments on identified threats and by not efficiently addressing these threats, Australia has not only avoided the logical approach to the problem but it has actually ignored its own commitments. The InterGovernmental Agreement on the Environment requires, “ensuring that measures adopted should be cost-effective and not be disproportionate to the significance of the environmental problems being addressed”.
Unless Australia changes its approach to marine conservation and bases management on addressing the properly identified threats in proportion to their severity, our marine “protected” areas will continue to fail to provide effective protection.
Bob Kearney has received funding over the last three years from the Commonwealth Government Fisheries Research and Development Corporation for work on threats to Australia’s biodiversity and how they are managed. He has received more than $10 million in research grants over the last 40 years, almost all of it from governments or government agencies. He also does two days work each month for the Sydney Fish Market on the sustainability of Australian fisheries.
This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.
Original story by Janine Hill, Sunshine Coast Daily
ROGUE anglers are blatantly ignoring the conservation zone around the wreck of the HMAS Brisbane, risking thousands of dollars in fines to catch fish in the protected area.
Commercial dive operators permitted to enter the HMAS Brisbane Conservation Park say they are constantly finding evidence of fishing on the wreck. Photo: Greg Riddell
Commercial dive operators permitted to enter the HMAS Brisbane Conservation Park say they are constantly finding evidence of fishing on the wreck.
In one instance, a man was spotted spear-fishing while scuba-diving around the artificial reef. Entry to the park is by permit only. General tourism operations, fishing, boating and other watercraft activities are not permitted at the site. Fines range up to $8800.
Mike McKinnon, of Scuba World at Mooloolaba, said that fresh evidence of fishing was visible on the wreck several times a week.
"WE'RE always finding hooks and lines on one of the transit lines that lead down to the ship that the divers follow, or we just find them on the wreck itself," he said.
"We see fish with hooks in their mouths."
A spokesman for Sunreef Scuba Diving Services said it was not unusual to find the skeletons of fish that had been filleted aboard boats above the wreck.
Both businesses have begun photographing intruding vessels and reporting them to authorities.
So far, only one person has been hit with a $330 fine in the past three months.
Both dive operators said Parks and Wildlife officers did their best, but had to cover a large area and could not be at the park around the clock.
Mr McKinnon said most of the people he approached claimed they had no idea they needed a permit.
But neither he nor Sunreef's spokesman believed them.
"There's a percentage where I would like to say it's ignorance, but it's marked on every chart as a conservation zone," Sunreef's spokesman said.
"It's been out there for eight years. Locals should know. If guys have got their own boat, they usually have their own charts and GPS.
"There's so many green zones you can barely fish anywhere without thinking about it.
"If they're not thinking about it, they should be."
Regional director for the Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing, Peter Wright, said rangers continued to conduct patrols and monitor compliance in the park.
The HMAS Brisbane was scuttled on July 31, 2005 to form an artificial reef for the diving industry.
It lies in 28m of water, about 9km offshore from Mooloolaba.
Entry is prohibited without a permit or written approval.
Original story by Cleo Fraser, the Telegraph
"WE need to be quiet, not make any sudden movements and keep our arms inside the boat," ranger Dan Mead whispers.
It's close to midnight, it's pitch black and we're out searching for crocs in far north Queensland.
Dan, who's suddenly become very serious, has seen two small red dots peering through the dense mangroves - he's spotted the eyes of our first croc.
Over the past 28 years, seven people have been killed by crocs and there have been 19 attacks in Queensland. Picture: Marc McCormack, News Limited
We've been cruising the Hull River near the tourist town of Mission Beach for almost an hour and a half. Our mission: to record how many crocs we see.
Dan slows the motor as we move in on the croc.
"It's a 10 footer I think," Dan whispers before the croc makes a getaway, swimming under the water and out of sight.
Under Queensland's crocodile management scheme rangers keep track of croc populations. They're also tasked with trapping and removing problem reptiles which lurk near populated areas.
After a croc is reported to them by a member of the public, rangers head out to observe whether it is showing signs of aggression.
"We try and collect all the facts because when it comes to crocodile stories they can get exaggerated or people might hear about them third hand," Dan said.
"We need to determine whether that croc was actually trying to approach people or trying to retreat to a deep section of river and had to swim past them to do so."
If it's determined to be a risk then a trap - a floating metal cage fitted with a rotting piece of meat - is set.
Once the crocs are caught they're towed behind a boat and transported to a holding pen on a trailer.
"That involves holding down the animal with a team of people so we can check the animal and determine whether it's male or female," Dan said.
"We leave it in the holding pen until we've found a new home for it."
Since about June last year up to 20 crocs have been caught in the state's north, of which all have been relocated to croc farms or zoos.
Environment Minister Andrew Powell recently announced the scheme would be extended to include reducing croc numbers around populated areas like Cairns.
Environmentalist Bob Irwin has raised concerns that the crocs are killed for meat or skins and made into handbags once taken to the farms.
Mr Powell's office has not said if any of the animals ultimately end up being used for fashion accessories or meat.
The normal range for crocodiles in Queensland is considered to be from Cape York Peninsula to Gladstone, although two crocs have recently been spotted in the Mary River in Maryborough.
A three to four metre salty was recently trapped near Port Douglas, north of Cairns, after being spotted cruising the popular beach.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection wildlife operations manager Mike Joyce says croc numbers have stayed relatively the same over recent years.
"We can basically set our watch to how many problem crocs are going to get called in," he told AAP.
He says the department takes reports of aggressive crocs seriously as rangers can be called to appear before coronial hearings if someone is killed.
Over the past 28 years, seven people have been killed by crocs and there have been 19 attacks in Queensland.
The 22 rangers in the north not only look out for crocs they also help injured animals such as cassowaries and flying foxes and educate locals.
During our two-hour croc spotting adventure along Hull River, we see just three salties - two about three metres long and a smaller one about one metre.
Dan says there's usually a lot more - spotting up to 10 in one night is normal - but at high tide the reptiles are able to hide underwater or behind mangroves.
Before taking up the role of head ranger at Innisfail, south of Cairns, five years ago Dan worked with the late croc hunter Steve Irwin at Australia Zoo.
It's fair to say he loves working with crocs.
But should those who aren't used to tackling crocs be afraid of the deadly reptiles?
"We don't necessarily want people to be fearful, we just want them to be aware of what they're doing and what environment they're in," he says.
"You just need to follow some simple rules like keeping three or four metres away from the water's edge."
Original story by Bill Hoffman, The Queensland Times
FISH swim between states and Commonwealth waters daily but Australia still lacks a national standard that would allow better management of the resource for both commercial and recreational purposes and ecosystem health.
Fisherman on the North Shore of Maroochydore fish for tailor during the winter. Photo Nicholas Falconer, Sunshine Coast Daily
Dr Trevor Ward, who wrote the marine section of the 2011 Australian State of the Environment Report, said without a standard there would be no integrated approach to the management of the precious national resource.
He said there was an overwhelming need to increase the stock of all fish species, a move that would enable both the commercial and recreational sectors to increase catches. Dr Ward argues that ultimately only closed marine areas would allow that to occur.
Ideally stocks should be maintained at 75% of their original biomass but Dr Ward said a figure of between 40-50% would be a worthwhile initial target.
Dr Ward was commenting after the release of data that shows the commercial catch of tailor on the Cooloola-Fraser coast has fallen substantially in the past decade.
He said a huge problem was that Australia had no common language around fish management and five or six different ways of reporting sustainability.
The Queensland Government last week said the number of sustainable fish species in Queensland had risen from 28 to 31 with only one of 75, snapper, considered unsustainable with the rest being "uncertain" or "undefined".
Dr Ward said the parameters used by fisheries' managers across Australia to define sustainability were ecologically very low and in many cases represented as little as 25% of what total numbers would be if no fishing occurred.
At those levels, stocks had only limited resilience to the impacts of climate change, pests, fishing, chemical run-off and seasonal weather variations.
"Ecologists argue that sustainable fishing should maintain 75% of the unfished biomass," he said.
"The irony is that if it was at 75% - and it would take a big leap to get there - catches could be doubled from what they are now.
"It would provide security and certainty."
Dr Ward said ultimately closing areas in the right places was the only way forward that would benefit the commercial and recreational sectors.
Globally the approach had proved infinitely more successful than bag and size limits which did not control the total catch.
"The truth is that in smart fishing systems, commercial fishermen make more money when closed areas are put where they are needed."
He said the fishing industry argument was simply wrong that fisheries could only be properly managed when they had total access.
Original story by Brian Williams, The Courier-Mail
ILLEGAL netting and dumping of fish has been occurring on Moreton Island for more than five years and successive governments have done nothing about it, says recreational fishing group Sunfish.
Fish dumped at Yellow Patch on the northern tip of Moreton Island off Brisbane.
Spokeswoman Judy Lynne said she had contacted the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Queensland Fisheries more than 10 times over the past five years with no results.
Ms Lynne said the Government knew who was behind the issue because many people had reported them but no prosecutions had been launched because officials never bothered to police the area.
Island residents and recreational fishers have taken photographs of tonnes of fish dumped at a creek at Yellow Patch on the northern end of the island off Brisbane about a week ago.
"Everyone knows who it is. People phone up the Government about it but they do nothing,'' she said. "Until they start to police things, it will continue.''
A Fisheries Queensland spokeswoman said 11 complaints had been recorded about fishing activities on Moreton over the past three years.
"Moreton Island is regularly patrolled, however a person needs to be caught in the act of illegal fishing, or have strong evidence linking them to the act, in order for a fine or prosecution to be enforced,'' she said.
Ms Lynne said illegal fishing occurred in a yellow zone at Yellow Patch under the Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan.
"Fisheries used to have a flying squad to handle these sorts of things but it's been disbanded,'' she said. "This has got to be policed. We need action.''
Fisheries and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service officers were investigating the dumping of bycatch.
The Fisheries spokeswoman said the flying squad had not been disbanded, rather it was renamed the Surveillance and Investigation Unit and some limited fishing was allowed in yellow zones.
A recreational fisher said there was no policing on the island.
"It's disgraceful what's happening over there,'' he said. "People are trying to sell undersize fish, other stuff that's gone off is being dumped and people are just not following the rules. They are running rampant and the Government is allowing it.''
By Stephen Garnett, Charles Darwin University at The Conversation
It will be no surprise that a recent analysis of biodiversity funding round the world found that Australia was among the 40 countries spending least in comparison to our global legacy of species. Now, thanks to the axing of the Biodiversity Fund to compensate for lost income from shifting to a floating carbon price, we may join countries like Iraq and the Congo at the very bottom of that list.
Australia used to care about conservation but do cuts to the Biodiversity Fund show we’ve turned our back on nature? Photo: Peter9914/Flickr
The tragedy for Australia’s animals and plants, and for those who value their persistence, is that this is seen as politically possible. How is it that a country in which stopping the damming of the Franklin River and the logging of Queensland’s rainforests were once seen as winning political causes, can now cut A$213 million for biodiversity conservation as an act of political expediency?
There certainly seems to be little resistance from the conservative parties. To do so would confuse an image that is increasingly anti-environment. The Opposition cannot wait to return control of environmental decision-making to the states, regardless of the consequences. Similarly one cannot imagine their colleagues in Queensland, NSW or Victoria would greatly mourn the loss of a program that could possibly impinge on their aspirations for resource development and the primacy of grazing over other environmental values.
So will there be any backlash for the cuts? Where are today’s Liberals for the Forests who brought down the Court government in Western Australia? Has the rump of a green Labor faction any traction under the new Rudd hegemony? One suspects not. Biodiversity, at its cost, has gone from being a mainstream issue for which all parties felt a need to pay at least a token interest to one now seen as increasingly the province of the Greens. And the Greens, naturally, are happy to represent it as strongly as they can.
Ironically, however, I suspect the very strength of the Greens has weakened the political voice for environmental issues further along the political spectrum. Branch meetings of the National party may hear even less often from farmers concerned about rare species on their properties. Unionists who once led campaigns for green space must now get short shrift in Sussex Street.
Over-egging of the pudding by conservation advocates has not helped. Claims of impending environmental catastrophe have often failed to eventuate in a political timeframe. Climate change is coming but we are not going to cook or drown tomorrow. Peak oil seems perpetually postponed. These are desperate, real issues, but they are not The Day after Tomorrow.
The vulnerable Honey Blue-eye, Pseudomugil mellis. Photo: ©Gunther Schmida
In the same vein some groups unhelpfully exaggerate to get money. A recent TV advertisement claimed orang-utans will be extinct in the wild by 2015. This is untrue and those giving money to the appeal will have done so under false pretences.
Exaggeration detracts from real environmental tragedies, like the first extinction of an Australian mammal in 40 years. Loss of the Christmas Island Pipistrelle was predicted, preventable and on land managed by the Commonwealth for conservation. When it went there was no coronial inquiry, no heads rolled, extinction became politically possible.
At the same time the conservation movement rarely leavens warnings with messages of hope. Understandably, school children dread their gloomy environmental classes. Conservation is in danger of replacing economics as the dismal science. Yet Australia has been extraordinarily successful in some areas of conservation. For instance the rescue of Macquarie Island from feral animals by the Tasmanian Parks service has been nothing short of extraordinary. Politicians, of whatever stripe, need praise and reinforcement for their achievements.
Scientists have also contributed. Conservation biologists tend to paint the bleakest picture of the future. And we alienate with our language. We talk of biodiversity when the public worries about koalas and animals and plants they can see and touch and imbue with human qualities. Most of the political strength of animals and plants comes from a feeling of moral outrage at the impending loss of something loved. A “Biodiversity” Fund is evidently expendable. I wonder if a fund that reflects society’s real affection for nature would have been less so.
Finally I think our primary piece of environmental legislation, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, has been letting down conservation by heavily enforcing the trivial at the expense of the important. Certainly recent moves to expand strategic assessments should lead to more sensible planning, and the Act has proved critical to constraining some potentially disastrous developments. Nevertheless a history of irritating and expensive conditions placed on localised developments has created incentives for companies to lobby for far weaker environmental laws.
The Greens will fight hard to recover the lost Biodiversity Fund. However the Greens do not own the environment, and their vote may have peaked. For me at least, protecting animals and plants is fundamental to civilization, a unique privilege and responsibility of humanity. Like the empowerment of minorities and the expression of creativity through the arts, it should be an ideal above party politics, and an aspiration of all political parties.
A fund for preventing extinctions and keeping precious common species common should be a core responsibility for government, an appropriate locked-in use of our taxes, and a mechanism to leave a healthy diverse landscape to our descendants.
Stephen Garnett receives funding from the Australian Research Council and has consulted to or worked closely with government, industry and conservation NGOs
This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.