Does Australia Have Too Many National Parks?
By Birding-Aus, on March 5th, 2014
There is a link between the conservation estate and the preservation of wildlife. The Australian PM is quoted as saying “We don’t support, as a government and as a Coalition, further lockouts of our forests …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.” There is a poll in the Fairfax media that runs until 9 pm EST, 10 pm EDST and 7 pm WST where you can note your opinion. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/no-more-national-parks-as-tony-abbott-pledges-to-support-loggers-as-the-ultimate-conservationists-20140305-345zp.html _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
The following article is of relevance to this topic: http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0305-abbott-ban-on-parks-alert.html Regards Greg Dr Greg. P. Clancy Ecologist and Birding-wildlife Guide | PO Box 63 Coutts Crossing NSW 2460 | 02 6649 3153 | 0429 601 960 http://www.gregclancyecologistguide.com http://gregswildliferamblings.blogspot.com.au/ _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Just to clarify, there are less than 1000 Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagles left, and less than 440 adults in total. They’re listed on state legislation as endangered in state legislation and their numbers declined significantly over recent decades, although may have mad some recovery more recently. Jeremy On 8 Mar 2014 20:12, “Ian May” < birding@ozemail.com.au> wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
According to your Treasury Department, current unemployment is 7.6 percent. While that is an increase since 2011, it seems well below historic numbers posted by Alan, and seems to reflect a drop in employment of less than 10,000 persons. I cannot speak about youth unemployment. So there may have been some dislocations, but not of the magnitude that would appear to be fixable only by resumption of logging. While Tasmanian unemployment and participation rates are worse than other states, the gap is not very large, certainly not by the standard of variation we see here in the U. S. Eric Jeffrey Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
In Tasmania the Forest industry was still operating in 2011. In the past two years it has collapsed bringing down many associated businesses. Compare 2011 figures to 2014 current figures and especially those relating to younger persons under 25 calyptorhynchus . wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Please publish the figures relarting to young Tasmanians Alan Gillanders wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Thanks Greg. Although I don’t claim to know what the optimum territory size is for Wedge-tailed Eagle in Tasmania, they are reasonably common and widespread; by any measure except for perhaps comparisons of seasonal population irruptions that occur in the Australian outback after rain with an exponential increase of rabbit and kangaroo numbers. The Wedge-tailed Eagle is well and possibly fully represented across the entire landscape in Tasmania and anyway, I cant imagine how the practices related to selective logging forestry could possibly impact on their population. regards Ian ———————————————————————— Greg and Val Clancy wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
I quite agree – some industries seem to be protected (logging and chocolate making), others (cars, fruit canning and maye airlines) not so. And most experts agree that people may well have to have several different careers during a life time of working, However – it cannot be denied that we use a lot of paper – more so since the “paperless office” became a reality if you believe statistics (I have worked with many people who insist on printing all their emails and then file them!). And this has to come from somewhere and much of it comes from timber. And we also use timber in many other ways as well of course. So I think there is certainly a future for logging and loggers – but I just hope that it is all in plantations! On 8 March 2014 10:35, Burnice Starkey < burnicestarkey@hotmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
This is straying far from birding, but for there to a valid argument about National Parks and conservation impoverishing Tasmania you need to show that there was some sort of Golden Age of full-employment and tree destruction in the past which came to end with the creation of National Parks. Might be difficult to prove. John Leonard On 8 March 2014 12:58, Alan Gillanders < alan@alanswildlifetours.com.au >wrote: — John Leonard Canberra Australia http://www.jleonard.net I want to be with the 9,999 other things. _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Not a bird species, but I would be worried about how opening up some of the World Heritage Area for logging would impact on local Tasmanian Devil populations. On the few occasions that I have visited Tasmania, it seemed that the number of animal road-kills, generally, were much higher along roads within or near logging areas. Perhaps displaced or resident animals being hit by logging trucks or other vehicles??? Tasmanian Devils scavenge on road-kills which I assume would put them at greater risk of becoming road-kill victims themselves. With wild Tasmanian Devil populations declining significantly in recent times as a result of Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD), do we want to put them at even greater risk of decline as a result of potential increased incidence of TD road-kills? There are also a number of studies of vertebrate populations which show that animals that are stressed as a result of human activities are more susceptible to diseases. I realise that DFTD is extremely contagious and if one Tassie Devil comes into contact with another with DFTD, it will mostly likely become infected. But what if logging increases physiological stress in Tasmanian Devils (and I don’t know if it does), would that make a TD’s immune system less able to fight DFTD? Stephen Ambrose Ryde NSW —–Original Message—– Greg and Val Clancy Sent: Saturday, 8 March 2014 11:57 AM Cc: birding-aus Correct me if I am wrong but the threatened subspecies of the Wedge-tailed Eagle in Tasmania is adversely affected by logging. I would be surprised if other species aren’t similarly affected despite that fact that some species thrive on the disturbance created by logging. Regards Greg Dr Greg. P. Clancy Ecologist and Birding-wildlife Guide | PO Box 63 Coutts Crossing NSW 2460 | 02 6649 3153 | 0429 601 960 http://www.gregclancyecologistguide.com http://gregswildliferamblings.blogspot.com.au/ —–Original Message—– Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 7:41 PM Cc: birding-aus <>Jeremy In Tasmania, dedicated National Parks cover about 20% of the State, while more than 50% is tied up in State Reserves that exclude economic activity considered normal even in National Parks Reserves in many other parts of Australia (Mining exploration etc.). We all know that National Parks reserves also include Conservation Parks, Recreational Parks, Regional Reserves, Game Reserves etc etc and not just National Parks. The end result to the economy is the same if it restricts or excludes most economic activity in the same manner. Until recently, in most States of Australia, “Reasonable representation of natural habitat” was considered a target of approximately 15% of the habitat zones <>and few should object to reasonable representation of natural areas for nature conservation and protection. And No, I am not suggesting open slather should be practiced in the rest. But now the so called Tasmanian Forestry agreement proposes to reserve more than 500,000 ha of previously logged forestry access areas (most of which are dry sclerophyll forest and not “Old Growth Rain Forest”) and place under National Parks management. As you would know, the agreement even excludes selective logging forestry (sustainable forestry), an industry that previously gave opportunity of employment to many many underprivileged people in regional areas of Tasmania. The Forest Industry in Tasmania is now lost and these people have nowhere to go. It probably would not be so bad if there were some demonstrated environmental benefits from all this but there are none that I can see. Even Masked Owls, Spotted Quail Thrush, Olive Whistlers, Pink and Flame Robins do well in Selectively logged Forestry zones. Anyway, enough diatribe from me but if you would like to name Tasmanian bird species significantly disadvantaged by selective logging forestry, I would appreciate the information. Regards Ian May St Helens, Tasmania. Jeremy O’Wheel wrote: ———————————————————————— ———————————————————————— _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
The answer to my request for actual figures on unemployment rates was not sent to the list but I thought it relevant so have included it here. Regards, Alan You should be able to dig those numbers up from the ABS site. I have looked at the Time Series profile for the Census data for Tasmania and it gives the following answers. Census year Unemployment Rate % 2011 6.4 2006 6.6 2001 10.1 1996 11.0 The pattern surprised me but my arithmetic seems OK. Alan’s Wildlife Tours 2 Mather Road Yungaburra 4884 Phone 07 4095 3784 Mobile 0408 953 786 http://www.alanswildlifetours.com.au/ —–Original Message—– Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2014 10:56 AM Cc: birding-aus Correct me if I am wrong but the threatened subspecies of the Wedge-tailed Eagle in Tasmania is adversely affected by logging. I would be surprised if other species aren’t similarly affected despite that fact that some species thrive on the disturbance created by logging. Regards Greg Dr Greg. P. Clancy Ecologist and Birding-wildlife Guide | PO Box 63 Coutts Crossing NSW 2460 | 02 6649 3153 | 0429 601 960 http://www.gregclancyecologistguide.com http://gregswildliferamblings.blogspot.com.au/ —–Original Message—– Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 7:41 PM Cc: birding-aus <>Jeremy In Tasmania, dedicated National Parks cover about 20% of the State, while more than 50% is tied up in State Reserves that exclude economic activity considered normal even in National Parks Reserves in many other parts of Australia (Mining exploration etc.). We all know that National Parks reserves also include Conservation Parks, Recreational Parks, Regional Reserves, Game Reserves etc etc and not just National Parks. The end result to the economy is the same if it restricts or excludes most economic activity in the same manner. Until recently, in most States of Australia, “Reasonable representation of natural habitat” was considered a target of approximately 15% of the habitat zones <>and few should object to reasonable representation of natural areas for nature conservation and protection. And No, I am not suggesting open slather should be practiced in the rest. But now the so called Tasmanian Forestry agreement proposes to reserve more than 500,000 ha of previously logged forestry access areas (most of which are dry sclerophyll forest and not “Old Growth Rain Forest”) and place under National Parks management. As you would know, the agreement even excludes selective logging forestry (sustainable forestry), an industry that previously gave opportunity of employment to many many underprivileged people in regional areas of Tasmania. The Forest Industry in Tasmania is now lost and these people have nowhere to go. It probably would not be so bad if there were some demonstrated environmental benefits from all this but there are none that I can see. Even Masked Owls, Spotted Quail Thrush, Olive Whistlers, Pink and Flame Robins do well in Selectively logged Forestry zones. Anyway, enough diatribe from me but if you would like to name Tasmanian bird species significantly disadvantaged by selective logging forestry, I would appreciate the information. Regards Ian May St Helens, Tasmania. Jeremy O’Wheel wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org —– No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG – http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4335 / Virus Database: 3722/7167 – Release Date: 03/07/14 _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Correct me if I am wrong but the threatened subspecies of the Wedge-tailed Eagle in Tasmania is adversely affected by logging. I would be surprised if other species aren’t similarly affected despite that fact that some species thrive on the disturbance created by logging. Regards Greg Dr Greg. P. Clancy Ecologist and Birding-wildlife Guide | PO Box 63 Coutts Crossing NSW 2460 | 02 6649 3153 | 0429 601 960 http://www.gregclancyecologistguide.com http://gregswildliferamblings.blogspot.com.au/ —–Original Message—– Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 7:41 PM Cc: birding-aus <>Jeremy In Tasmania, dedicated National Parks cover about 20% of the State, while more than 50% is tied up in State Reserves that exclude economic activity considered normal even in National Parks Reserves in many other parts of Australia (Mining exploration etc.). We all know that National Parks reserves also include Conservation Parks, Recreational Parks, Regional Reserves, Game Reserves etc etc and not just National Parks. The end result to the economy is the same if it restricts or excludes most economic activity in the same manner. Until recently, in most States of Australia, “Reasonable representation of natural habitat” was considered a target of approximately 15% of the habitat zones <>and few should object to reasonable representation of natural areas for nature conservation and protection. And No, I am not suggesting open slather should be practiced in the rest. But now the so called Tasmanian Forestry agreement proposes to reserve more than 500,000 ha of previously logged forestry access areas (most of which are dry sclerophyll forest and not “Old Growth Rain Forest”) and place under National Parks management. As you would know, the agreement even excludes selective logging forestry (sustainable forestry), an industry that previously gave opportunity of employment to many many underprivileged people in regional areas of Tasmania. The Forest Industry in Tasmania is now lost and these people have nowhere to go. It probably would not be so bad if there were some demonstrated environmental benefits from all this but there are none that I can see. Even Masked Owls, Spotted Quail Thrush, Olive Whistlers, Pink and Flame Robins do well in Selectively logged Forestry zones. Anyway, enough diatribe from me but if you would like to name Tasmanian bird species significantly disadvantaged by selective logging forestry, I would appreciate the information. Regards Ian May St Helens, Tasmania. Jeremy O’Wheel wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
At the risk of adding fuel to the fire a relevant and persuasive article by Bob Brown, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/06/tasmania-a-death-warrant-against-pristine-forests-abbott-has-never-seen Kevin Stracey _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Hi Ian, I didn’t make any sort of comment on forestry or environmental policy in Tasmania, but merely pointed out your claim that; ” It should be noted that reserving more than 50% of Tasmania to unmanaged National Parks Reserves” Is incorrect, and as you now concede, the amount of National Parks are less than half the amount you have claimed. Regards Somebody who accepts humans are influencing the climate through greenhouse gas emissions. On 7 Mar 2014 19:42, “Ian May” < birding@ozemail.com.au> wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
<>Jeremy In Tasmania, dedicated National Parks cover about 20% of the State, while more than 50% is tied up in State Reserves that exclude economic activity considered normal even in National Parks Reserves in many other parts of Australia (Mining exploration etc.). We all know that National Parks reserves also include Conservation Parks, Recreational Parks, Regional Reserves, Game Reserves etc etc and not just National Parks. The end result to the economy is the same if it restricts or excludes most economic activity in the same manner. Until recently, in most States of Australia, “Reasonable representation of natural habitat” was considered a target of approximately 15% of the habitat zones <>and few should object to reasonable representation of natural areas for nature conservation and protection. And No, I am not suggesting open slather should be practiced in the rest. But now the so called Tasmanian Forestry agreement proposes to reserve more than 500,000 ha of previously logged forestry access areas (most of which are dry sclerophyll forest and not “Old Growth Rain Forest”) and place under National Parks management. As you would know, the agreement even excludes selective logging forestry (sustainable forestry), an industry that previously gave opportunity of employment to many many underprivileged people in regional areas of Tasmania. The Forest Industry in Tasmania is now lost and these people have nowhere to go. It probably would not be so bad if there were some demonstrated environmental benefits from all this but there are none that I can see. Even Masked Owls, Spotted Quail Thrush, Olive Whistlers, Pink and Flame Robins do well in Selectively logged Forestry zones. Anyway, enough diatribe from me but if you would like to name Tasmanian bird species significantly disadvantaged by selective logging forestry, I would appreciate the information. Regards Ian May St Helens, Tasmania. Jeremy O’Wheel wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Although I wouldn’t usually support a climate change denier, the area in the South West is rainforest and consists of fire intolerant species. That ecosystem only survives through the absence of fire. The rest of Tasmania is mainly Eucalyptus forest that relies on or benefits from fire. So it’s not so much an issue of forestry but ecology. The famous Tasmania botanist William Jackson made his name working on this in the 1950s and 60s. Jeremy On 7 Mar 2014 17:31, “Chris Charles” < licole@ozemail.com.au> wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Interesting Ian. The map you reference shows that where the loggers have been excluded from the South West of Tasmania there have been no fires. Chris On 06/03/2014, at 6:34 PM, Ian May < birding@ozemail.com.au> wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Actually Ian, in Tasmania about 21% of land is in national parks. The figures most often quoted is that over 40% is in National Parks and “reserves.” Reserves have varying levels of protection, but are not national parks. Jeremy On 6 March 2014 18:34, Ian May < birding@ozemail.com.au> wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Ian, Unmanaged or undermanaged national parks are a huge problem in this country, I agree. So are the huge areas of central and northern Australia which have fewer land managers on them than fifty years ago and none of those walking the country. However as to the causes and effects you have drawn I am not so sure. Do you have the statistics of unemployment for your state for the last decade or two? I would be interested in those on a year by year or line graph basis. Regards, Alan Alan’s Wildlife Tours 2 Mather Road Yungaburra 4884 Phone 07 4095 3784 Mobile 0408 953 786 http://www.alanswildlifetours.com.au/ —–Original Message—– Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 5:34 PM Cc: birding-aus Hello Tom Yes, I like to push some buttons too however in this debate I am only an ill informed observer. It should be noted that reserving more than 50% of Tasmania to unmanaged National Parks Reserves has killed this states economy, condemned many of its residence to generations of welfare and created the worst circumstances possible for the management of wild fires. But before linking recent major bushfires, droughts etc. to some peoples theories about climate change, have a look at this. http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/fireall.html regards Ian ———————————————————————— Tom Tarrant wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org —– No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG – http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4335 / Virus Database: 3705/7157 – Release Date: 03/05/14 _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Hello Tom Yes, I like to push some buttons too however in this debate I am only an ill informed observer. It should be noted that reserving more than 50% of Tasmania to unmanaged National Parks Reserves has killed this states economy, condemned many of its residence to generations of welfare and created the worst circumstances possible for the management of wild fires. But before linking recent major bushfires, droughts etc. to some peoples theories about climate change, have a look at this. http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/fireall.html regards Ian ———————————————————————— Tom Tarrant wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Ian, After all the recent fires in Tasmania, will the ‘good citizens of Tasmania’ be more concerned about their economy or climate-change?….we recently saw the writing on the wall’ in the Redcliffe by-election and I think there will be further surprises in the forthcoming re-run of the WA senate election, I would like to think that there is still hope for Tassies Forests, and will still continue to push poll-buttons (….when I’m not at work), best of luck, Tom On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Ian May < birding@ozemail.com.au> wrote: — ******************************** Tom Tarrant Kobble Creek, Qld http://www.aviceda.org ******************************** _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Ian May wrote: But does this necessarily mean that the lack of success there has been caused by these policies? It might be that it could have been a lot worse otherwise. Peter Shute _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
I think the recent swing in the poll shows that other people also have time to waste! But seriously – it is of concern to me (and I am sure others) that those who care about the environment and wish to preserve habitat for birds and help to conserve them seem to be labelled with a highly derogatory “Green” label, when we may have no connection with other elements of “green” policy. Perhaps you have a solution to that Ian? On 6 March 2014 11:12, Ian May < birding@ozemail.com.au> wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
g’Day Peter, Dave and all Perhaps most Green zealots do little else but sit around and play with their iphones while waiting for an opportunity to push poll buttons and preach left wing philosophy. It probably takes more time for more productive members of society who are mostly at work to find out or even bother with frivolous polls in Fairfax media. The reality seems to be, that the Green pendulum has swung back to the right. Especially here in Tasmania, most if its good citizens appear to be fed up with the high social costs of being lumbered with green public policy that has achieved little more than to make the state a feel good playground for visitors. The saddest part is that despite such a high social cost, there has been little success in achieving reasonable conservation benchmarks, i.e. Orange-bellied Parrot. The costly green experiment appears to have failed. regards Ian May PO Box 110 St Helens, Tasmania. 7216 Mob: 0428337956 ———————————————————————— Peter Shute wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
This will become, more or less, relevant to this thread if not the underlying objectives of birding-aus, trust me. From the wikipedia article on Doonesbury controversies : – Trudeau sought input from readers as to where Alex Doonesbury should attend college in a May 15, 2006, straw poll at Doonesbury.com. Voters chose among MIT , Rensselaer , and Cornell . Students from Rensselaer and then MIT hacked the system, which was designed to limit each computer to one vote. In the end, voters logged 175,000 votes, with MIT grabbing 48% of the total. The Doonesbury Town Hall FAQ stated that given that the rules of the poll had not ruled out such methods, “the will, chutzpah, and bodacious craft of the voting public will be respected,” declaring that Alex will be attending MIT. Perhaps we should await the admission by someone that they have also been dong a little crafty coding in respect to the Fairfax poll on National parks? Martin Martin Butterfield http://franmart.blogspot.com.au/ On 6 March 2014 08:46, Peter Shute < pshute@nuw.org.au> wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
It’s now on 83% yes, and the vote count has increased from about 3000 when I looked yesterday evening to nearly 120,000. At least it’s now obvious it can’t be believed. Peter Shute _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
This is the problem with all online polls, petitions etc. They are so easy to “influence” that I guess no-one takes much notice of them. Plus they are hardly representative – I am sure if you put a survey on the “Australian Pig Breeders” website (if such a thing exists!) you would find 98% of the population own a pig or are planning to buy one. Equally despite my earlier slightly flippant comment Fairfax does tend to have a less right-wing slant than News Corp so that will always distort results. On 6 March 2014 08:33, Judy Leitch < judyleitch@optusnet.com.au> wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
I voted and at that time the NO vote was ahead, I checked 5 mins later and the YES vote had doubled
This also happened 2 weeks ago in a Gold Coast Bulletin online poll with regards a Cruise Ship Terminal on our wonderful Broadwater. Check this out – http://www.itnews.com.au/News/331994,ballot-stuffing-bot-hits-news-ltd-polls .aspx Judy —–Original Message—– Dave Torr Sent: Thursday, 6 March 2014 7:19 AM Cc: birding-aus It is well known that all Fairfax readers are left-wing, tree-hugging greenies so why would any good conservative government any any attention to such a poll? On 5 March 2014 17:55, Laurie Knight < l.knight@optusnet.com.au> wrote: up forest.” _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
It is well known that all Fairfax readers are left-wing, tree-hugging greenies so why would any good conservative government any any attention to such a poll? On 5 March 2014 17:55, Laurie Knight < l.knight@optusnet.com.au> wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Well, Australia has too many National Parks that have don’t enough funds to be managed properly. But that isn’t what the PM is saying. John Leonard On 5 March 2014 19:44, Peter Shute < pshute@nuw.org.au> wrote: — John Leonard Canberra Australia http://www.jleonard.net I want to be with the 9,999 other things. _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
Hi, I’ve been forwarded two emails from ACF who have a petition going to try to influence the plan to have the World Heritage listing of part of Tasmania’s forests delisted. Forward the email and petition link http://www.action.org.au/heritage I’m adding it here in case anyone wants to sign and doesn’t know about it. It’s interesting that the pole is running in Queensland too. Sonja On 05/03/2014, at 7:44 PM, Peter Shute < pshute@nuw.org.au> wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
But can timber workers read? (Strange considering how much timber ends up as parer – but perhaps they only want it as bum-fodder.) Anthea Fleming On 5/03/2014 7:44 PM, Peter Shute wrote: _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
The no vote is winning by a long way at the moment. Perhaps the timber workers are too busy being ultimate conservationists to vote. Peter Shute Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ Birding-Aus mailing list Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org