LETTER OF THE WEEK - The Land, November 1, 2007

Hijacked by hyperbole in environment debate

SIR: Two articles in The Land of October 25 highlight an issue that should be of continuing concern  to your readers: the hijacking of the environmental agenda by minority groups using their ideology  as a platform for change.

Ian Causley, the retiring Member for the seat of Page ("Fresh page for man who spoke his mind",  p6), tells us: "Our democracy had been hijacked by minority groups prone to hyperbole, which were  influencing the views of city people and politicians to the detriment of rural industries and  communities."

He cites two examples of where we have lost the plot in the management of public resources:  forestry and the Murray-Darling.

The continuing saga of invasive native species (woody weeds) in the Central West could be added  to those examples.

In the same edition, Ian Lobban from the Victorian Farmers Federation, commenting in the article,
"Conservation a threat" (Southern regional edition, p1), tells us the Victorian Environmental  Assessment Council (VEAC) recommendations for the red gum forests along the Murray River "have  the potential to shut down farming and recreational industries".

The Australian Environment Foundation endorses the sentiments expressed and believes any  environmental issue that is tackled using science and empirical evidence will deliver the right  outcomes.

Sadly, the woody weeds issue is a prime example of ideology triumphing over science and evidence;  the VEAC proposals for the red gum forests are another.

Duncan Malcolm, the chair of VEAC, is quoted in the article as saying: "The health of the river red  gum forests along the Murray River is far worse than expected" - as one would expect after 10 years  of drought.

However, reducing the area of State forest available for timber harvesting, banning campfires,  reducing access for camping and launching of boats, reclassifying State game reserves into nature  conservation reserves, and increasing the size of national parks by 300 per cent will not change  that one bit.

These changes will reduce or exclude the use of public land by change of land tenure.

By themselves they will not lead to better land management.

We all support more water for the red gum forests - we do not support changes that will further  marginalise small rural communities for no net environmental gain.

Similar proposals will be suggested for red gum forests in NSW by the National Parks Association.

Rural people should reflect on the statements of Mr Causley and Mr Lobban and decide how much  they have to lose before they act to save their environment.

MAX RHEESE,
Executive director,
Australian Environment Foundation, Benalla, Vic.