Tardis001 at August 1, 2018 at 1:45 AM

Rumpole at August 1, 2018 at 1:05 AM

gusset at August 1, 2018 at 1:00 AM

Tardis001 at August 1, 2018 at 12:27 AM

gusset at August 1, 2018 at 12:03 AM

Tardis001 at July 31, 2018 at 8:36 PM

Rumpole at July 31, 2018 at 7:51 PM

Tough situation for koalas on Raymond Island.

The implication seems to be that even if there were no humans on the island, the koalas would eventually eat themselves out of resources.

The population would then decline until the resources are sufficient to feed them, then they start breeding and the cycle starts again.

Isn't this just how nature works ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/raymond-island-koalas-starving-to-death/10048848

Yes, that's pretty much how nature works. There would also be other natural processes at work too. When the Koala population gets too large, not only is there a potential shortage of food, but there's a greater population density which usually results in the easier spread of diseases, some of which are fatal to Koalas. The drought is also a natural controlling factor - droughts dry out the soils, which stress the trees, stressed trees drop leaves and don't grow new ones. Koalas are selective on what leaves they feed on - they prefer certain eucalypt species and they select new leaf growth because it is less toxic and easier to digest, so if there is no new leaf growth during a drought, there's no food for the Koalas. The droughts are more severe and prolonged because of human-induced global warming and there is less habitat for Koalas on Raymond Island where they can go looking for food, because of clearing for development. So the odds of the Koalas surviving the drought are stacked against them.

There's a horrible inevitability about that logic that is painful to read. Why is it more important always to develop every inch of land for use by humans rather than consider the current occupants first? Would any of these people be happy to oblige and get out of the way if some caring individual or group decided to buy the land, if available, and create a sanctuary for the koalas or any other species of lower animal? I think not.

Good point Gussy. Every development proposal in Australia, big or small, is required to have an environmental impact assessment, which is reviewed by government (local council if it is a small development such as building a house on a block of land, state and federal governments if it is a huge development such as a mine). The problem is, the environmental impacts are assessed for an individual development in isolation of everything else. So most of the time one can argue that clearing a block of land to build a house will not have a significant impact on the natural environment and that development will be approved by the council. But across a longer period of time there may be many similar-sized blocks in the same locality cleared for housing. Individually, each project would not have a significant impact on the natural environment, but collectively they do, i.e. death by a thousand cuts. Unfortunately, environmental legislation only looks at the impacts of individual projects and not the collective or cumulative impacts of all the projects together. Clearly, this is what is happening on Raymond Island.

Environmental lmpact assessments are made by humans then considered by government humans at whatever level is appropriate. Their personal ideas inevitably influence their responses, and making the "right decisions" is important to their standing in the human community, especially their bank managers, so they circle a few trees here and there to make a flight path for birds and mammals who migrate through the territory then sit back with a self satisfied smile. They should be compelled by law to consult with the scientists who understand the importance of such matters as to what needs to be done and how it should be done. The problem with that is the laws are made by those who sanction such fatal actions, so inevitably the lower ranks pay the price.

If a price is put on trees, say $300 for every tree felled, the money could go to plant trees elsewhere in that area or in another area.

We need to become "tree neutral", if one goes, another gets planted.

That's what the politicians and government bureaucrats want us to do. If only it was that easy. The simple fact is you can't move whole, inconveniently-placed ecosystems from one place (development sites) to other areas (non-developable sites). Which is essentially what being "tree neutral" means. Planting native trees is important, but it takes over 200 years for the revegetated areas to resemble the naturally-evolved sites that they are replacing (i.e. the sites that are being cleared). In the meantime, animal and plant communities that have been displaced by clearing need to find somewhere to live and breed. A study conducted in the mid-1990s concluded that over 4 million woodland birds in south-eastern and south-western Australia died each year because of land-clearing. They were territorial species, had specialist habitat requirements and were unable to disperse to other suitable habitat areas. Even if they are able to disperse to new areas, they generally don't survive because of competition for resources with birds that are already there (so they starve or can't find nesting spots and so don't breed), predation (they don't know where predators hang out in the new area and they don't know where to hide from predators), or they die from stress-related illnesses that are related to being in poor body condition or having to start a new life in a new location.

gusset at August 1, 2018 at 3:20 AM

Tardis001 at August 1, 2018 at 1:45 AM

Rumpole at August 1, 2018 at 1:05 AM

gusset at August 1, 2018 at 1:00 AM

Tardis001 at August 1, 2018 at 12:27 AM

gusset at August 1, 2018 at 12:03 AM

Tardis001 at July 31, 2018 at 8:36 PM

Rumpole at July 31, 2018 at 7:51 PM

Tough situation for koalas on Raymond Island.

The implication seems to be that even if there were no humans on the island, the koalas would eventually eat themselves out of resources.

The population would then decline until the resources are sufficient to feed them, then they start breeding and the cycle starts again.

Isn't this just how nature works ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-31/raymond-island-koalas-starving-to-death/10048848

Yes, that's pretty much how nature works. There would also be other natural processes at work too. When the Koala population gets too large, not only is there a potential shortage of food, but there's a greater population density which usually results in the easier spread of diseases, some of which are fatal to Koalas. The drought is also a natural controlling factor - droughts dry out the soils, which stress the trees, stressed trees drop leaves and don't grow new ones. Koalas are selective on what leaves they feed on - they prefer certain eucalypt species and they select new leaf growth because it is less toxic and easier to digest, so if there is no new leaf growth during a drought, there's no food for the Koalas. The droughts are more severe and prolonged because of human-induced global warming and there is less habitat for Koalas on Raymond Island where they can go looking for food, because of clearing for development. So the odds of the Koalas surviving the drought are stacked against them.

There's a horrible inevitability about that logic that is painful to read. Why is it more important always to develop every inch of land for use by humans rather than consider the current occupants first? Would any of these people be happy to oblige and get out of the way if some caring individual or group decided to buy the land, if available, and create a sanctuary for the koalas or any other species of lower animal? I think not.

Good point Gussy. Every development proposal in Australia, big or small, is required to have an environmental impact assessment, which is reviewed by government (local council if it is a small development such as building a house on a block of land, state and federal governments if it is a huge development such as a mine). The problem is, the environmental impacts are assessed for an individual development in isolation of everything else. So most of the time one can argue that clearing a block of land to build a house will not have a significant impact on the natural environment and that development will be approved by the council. But across a longer period of time there may be many similar-sized blocks in the same locality cleared for housing. Individually, each project would not have a significant impact on the natural environment, but collectively they do, i.e. death by a thousand cuts. Unfortunately, environmental legislation only looks at the impacts of individual projects and not the collective or cumulative impacts of all the projects together. Clearly, this is what is happening on Raymond Island.

Environmental lmpact assessments are made by humans then considered by government humans at whatever level is appropriate. Their personal ideas inevitably influence their responses, and making the "right decisions" is important to their standing in the human community, especially their bank managers, so they circle a few trees here and there to make a flight path for birds and mammals who migrate through the territory then sit back with a self satisfied smile. They should be compelled by law to consult with the scientists who understand the importance of such matters as to what needs to be done and how it should be done. The problem with that is the laws are made by those who sanction such fatal actions, so inevitably the lower ranks pay the price.

If a price is put on trees, say $300 for every tree felled, the money could go to plant trees elsewhere in that area or in another area.

We need to become "tree neutral", if one goes, another gets planted.

That's what the politicians and government bureaucrats want us to do. If only it was that easy. The simple fact is you can't move whole, inconveniently-placed ecosystems from one place (development sites) to other areas (non-developable sites). Which is essentially what being "tree neutral" means. Planting native trees is important, but it takes over 200 years for the revegetated areas to resemble the naturally-evolved sites that they are replacing (i.e. the sites that are being cleared). In the meantime, animal and plant communities that have been displaced by clearing need to find somewhere to live and breed. A study conducted in the mid-1990s concluded that over 4 million woodland birds in south-eastern and south-western Australia died each year because of land-clearing. They were territorial species, had specialist habitat requirements and were unable to disperse to other suitable habitat areas. Even if they are able to disperse to new areas, they generally don't survive because of competition for resources with birds that are already there (so they starve or can't find nesting spots and so don't breed), predation (they don't know where predators hang out in the new area and they don't know where to hide from predators), or they die from stress-related illnesses that are related to being in poor body condition or having to start a new life in a new location.

If I can understand what you explain why can't all these supposedly clever, superiorly educated people do it too? Tardy, would you and your fellow scientists consider setting up a petition about this whole sorry business and at least try to make the people involved realise what they are doing to our fellow creatures and indeed to the planet as a whole? I'll gladly sign anything that makes them stop and think before it's too late. Instead of getting them to spend 300 dollars of our money on replacing each tree destroyed let's reduce their salary by that amount for each tree uprooted. I'm sure that would get their attention! I know that sounds absurd but so is their behaviour.

Tardis001 at August 1, 2018 at 2:14 AM

Will Geordie Williamson be the next Australian hero? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-01/fields-medals-to-be-awarded-to-best-mathematical-minds/10049510

Tardis001 at August 1, 2018 at 6:49 PM

Tardis001 at August 1, 2018 at 2:14 AM

Will Geordie Williamson be the next Australian hero? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-01/fields-medals-to-be-awarded-to-best-mathematical-minds/10049510

No, but another Australian is the hero. I'm expecting Pauline Hanson to hold a press conference today to congratulate this Asian/Australian migrant for his contributions. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-02/fields-medal-aussie-genius-akshay-venkatesh-mathematics-prize/10062218

Pity he's benefitting US students and not Australian ones.

Australian researchers invent drug that puts cancer to sleep.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2018-08-02/new-australian-drug-puts-cancers-to-sleep-in-mice/10064900

Rumpole at August 1, 2018 at 8:10 PM

Tardis001 at August 1, 2018 at 6:49 PM

Tardis001 at August 1, 2018 at 2:14 AM

Will Geordie Williamson be the next Australian hero? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-01/fields-medals-to-be-awarded-to-best-mathematical-minds/10049510

No, but another Australian is the hero. I'm expecting Pauline Hanson to hold a press conference today to congratulate this Asian/Australian migrant for his contributions. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-02/fields-medal-aussie-genius-akshay-venkatesh-mathematics-prize/10062218

Pity he's benefitting US students and not Australian ones.

Rumpole at August 1, 2018 at 8:11 PM

Australian researchers invent drug that puts cancer to sleep.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2018-08-02/new-australian-drug-puts-cancers-to-sleep-in-mice/10064900

Tardis001 at August 1, 2018 at 8:32 PM

Rumpole at August 1, 2018 at 8:11 PM

Australian researchers invent drug that puts cancer to sleep.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2018-08-02/new-australian-drug-puts-cancers-to-sleep-in-mice/10064900

It seems that Australia is one of the world leaders in cancer research.

This is a very interesting development. 

Tardis001 at August 3, 2018 at 1:36 AM

Good advice for drought-affected areas of inland eastern Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-03/how-trees-can-be-used-as-drought-busters/10069318

Tardis001 at August 3, 2018 at 7:54 PM

On the flip side of the coin: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/04/clearing-of-native-vegetation-in-nsw-jumps-800-in-three-years

The only way to stop this is to get rid of Gladys and her government, so I hope that there is a concerted campaign from Green groups to highlight this destruction and get a change of government.

I'm assuming that Labor opposes this clearing, but maybe I'm wrong in that ?

Rumpole at August 3, 2018 at 7:58 PM

Tardis001 at August 3, 2018 at 7:54 PM

On the flip side of the coin: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/04/clearing-of-native-vegetation-in-nsw-jumps-800-in-three-years

The only way to stop this is to get rid of Gladys and her government, so I hope that there is a concerted campaign from Green groups to highlight this destruction and get a change of government.

I'm assuming that Labor opposes this clearing, but maybe I'm wrong in that ?

Tardis001 at August 3, 2018 at 8:43 PM

Rumpole at August 3, 2018 at 7:58 PM

Tardis001 at August 3, 2018 at 7:54 PM

On the flip side of the coin: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/04/clearing-of-native-vegetation-in-nsw-jumps-800-in-three-years

The only way to stop this is to get rid of Gladys and her government, so I hope that there is a concerted campaign from Green groups to highlight this destruction and get a change of government.

I'm assuming that Labor opposes this clearing, but maybe I'm wrong in that ?

The NSW ALP and the Greens have promised to repeal the new environmental legislation (Biodiversity Conservation Act and Local Land Services Act) to reverse this trend, if they have the numbers in parliament after the next election. My concern is that it is going to be extremely difficulty to undo the complex administrative process that Gladys and her government has set up and which allows this amount (and more) of land clearing. It is so complex that few people, including the people who work for the government, fully understand it. I was at a conference last week which trawled through the administrative processes and individual government bureaucrats and scientists were giving conflicting advice. If they can't fully understand it, there's little hope for the rest of us. The figures in the Guardian article don't include the extent of native vegetation that has been cleared since the new legislation has come into effect (August 2017) because it is not yet available. But is likely that land-clearing post-August 2017 has increased significantly, and will continue to do so, because the new legislation makes it easier to clear native vegetation, particularly in rural areas.

Maybe time for a moratorium on all land clearing untill people actually understand what is going on.

Rumpole at August 3, 2018 at 8:48 PM

Tardis001 at August 3, 2018 at 8:43 PM

Rumpole at August 3, 2018 at 7:58 PM

Tardis001 at August 3, 2018 at 7:54 PM

On the flip side of the coin: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/04/clearing-of-native-vegetation-in-nsw-jumps-800-in-three-years

The only way to stop this is to get rid of Gladys and her government, so I hope that there is a concerted campaign from Green groups to highlight this destruction and get a change of government.

I'm assuming that Labor opposes this clearing, but maybe I'm wrong in that ?

The NSW ALP and the Greens have promised to repeal the new environmental legislation (Biodiversity Conservation Act and Local Land Services Act) to reverse this trend, if they have the numbers in parliament after the next election. My concern is that it is going to be extremely difficulty to undo the complex administrative process that Gladys and her government has set up and which allows this amount (and more) of land clearing. It is so complex that few people, including the people who work for the government, fully understand it. I was at a conference last week which trawled through the administrative processes and individual government bureaucrats and scientists were giving conflicting advice. If they can't fully understand it, there's little hope for the rest of us. The figures in the Guardian article don't include the extent of native vegetation that has been cleared since the new legislation has come into effect (August 2017) because it is not yet available. But is likely that land-clearing post-August 2017 has increased significantly, and will continue to do so, because the new legislation makes it easier to clear native vegetation, particularly in rural areas.

Maybe time for a moratorium on all land clearing untill people actually understand what is going on.

Even the NSW Farmers Association is unhappy with the new land-clearing legislation, though for different reasons to those provided by scientists and conservationists:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-07-26/land-clearing-warning-from-president-of-nsw-farmers-association/10030228

Tardis001 at August 4, 2018 at 7:24 PM

I know this reserve very well and understand the problem with over-population by kangaroos (and wallabies). Thomson's Lake Reserve is essentially an island of bushland surrounded by urban development and is completely fenced off to prevent grey kangaroos and brush-wallabies from bounding across busy urban roads. If there is not a population control program in place, then the kangaroos and wallabies will degrade the vegetation, eat all the grasses and eventually starve to death or become susceptible to disease. It's not possible to capture and release the kangaroos and wallabies at another location because they don't usually survive capture, confinement and transportation because they are easily stressed. They would also need to be quarantined for at least 3 months and have regular health checks before they are released at other locations, and there just isn't enough space to hold so many individuals in captivity for that time. Neutering isn't an option either, it would involve capturing and handling, which would have the same stress effects of capturing and transporting them to another location. So, unfortunately, culling is the only practical option on the table. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-05/suburban-kangaroo-cull-weighed-for-thomsons-lake-reserve-perth/10043842

Sometimes you have to take the least worst option. The kangaroos are no different to rabbits in some circumstances.

Pity that there can be some way of sterilising a portionof the breeding animals without stress  to cut down on the breeding rate.