G’day RKC,
Indeed and no doubt the committee was loaded with people, whose intention was to ban dredging regardless of evidence presented, that supported a decision to the contrary.
With regards to some of the evidence given, it is interesting to note where some of these people are now in DSE or Parks Victoria and the relationship between some of them at that time. There seemed to be a cosy little network that existed between some key people inside and outside of DSE.
One of them, an environmental activist and now senior flora and fauna manager, received a copy of the DSE submission before the committee did. This was brought out at one of the public hearings, at which this person gave ‘evidence’ and was noted and commented on by the chairman.
The EGD supporters on the other hand, were not privy to such information and had such requests denied.
I did an FOI at the time to get one of the field diaries, from a surveyor and purported ‘expert’ of one of the endangered species mentioned. I found, relative to the geographic target area, this person had hardly looked for it. Apart from his limited input, there was little historic data available and yet somehow this species had an Endangered species status. This was regardless of the fact that this species had potentially a huge geographical range, which included the most rugged and isolated parts of the Great Dividing Range, making it impossible to calculate their numbers.
Furthermore, physiological traits of the species, seemed to have been manipulated in reports, to present the species as threatened. Example, the population was presented as static, when in fact it was nomadic. Being presented as static, enabled it to be declared ‘locally extinct’, when in fact the population had moved on and would more than likely return. This person now holds a prominent position, in a prominent and iconic institution here in Victoria.
I found out later that this particular ‘expert’ was in fact a friend of the above mentioned activist and now senior flora and fauna manager.
The senior flora and fauna manger, when he was an activist, also lobbied to have significant wilderness areas introduced, which deny virtually all human access.
I believe this is the tip of the ice berg and that we have significant issues of insider trading of information here, as well as potential illegal collusion, regarding departmental management outcomes. Together such people could easily manipulate important raw data sets and the public, in fact the ministers also, would never now.
Most frighteningly, is the input such people have had in the meantime, with fuel reduction burning and the way they can manipulate outcomes from the sidelines.
Joan Kirner made it, that certain State legislation MUST be taken into consideration when environmental issues are planned for. The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988), introduced by herself, was described as the overarching legislation to all environmental legislation. Legislatively, animals and plants were officially given more rights than humans and radical environmentalists were given the task of implementing it.
I would like to see these people now brought to task on excessive fuel loads, their denial of it and the outcomes of their denial.
Here’s some links of interest re ecological fraud,
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=7242and, of course they have the AGW scam to rely on,
www.climatechangefraud.com/editorials/2138-playing-god-with-endangered-speciesand
www.naturalprocess.net/np_pages/coho.htmlExtract from this, re ‘endangered’ coho salmon,
‘Did the local environmental groups see opportunity in developing the perception of a crisis? It has been a gold mine. Various bureaucrats "nominated" watersheds along the entire Central Coast as "impaired" on grounds related to salmon. Now remember, watersheds extend all the way up to the ridgeline of the mountains, over twenty miles from the coast. A nomination of impairment stakes a claim on the use of every square inch of the drainage.’
RKC, your likening of our situation to California is exactly right. In both instances, those that claim environmental damage is caused by EGDing, have no evidence and rely on administritive means to satisfy their ban. They have no evidence and rely on scare tactics, innuendo and exaggerated and ill founded ‘potentials’. The evidence that does actually exist, is to the contrary of those that object but they won’t except this.
Of course, many of these groups and individuals have political goals in mind, more so than environmental. A form of dictatorship dressed up as socialism perhaps? Undoubtedly, to me ultimately, it’s all about strengthening and shifting power to the U.N., at any cost. AGW and the Precautionary Principle come to mind. But that’s another long rant for some other time.
I’d better stop rambling on here or I might overload your server when I post.
RKC, just a thought. What do you think? Is there any worth in considering an international small scale miners body? I wonder if the PMAV has considered such an option (GeoffS??). While the make-up of s.s.miners would vary around the world, one thing many would have in common, is the pressure from activists. And these activists rely on numbers rather than evidence.
An international body or co-operative of s.s.miners could be formed via the internet, in the least to form a membership base and numbers. This is exactly what many environmental groups do.
Such a group amongst other things could:
1. Provide support to s.s.miners in developed countries, where the ability and potential for environmentally sound practices to be established are already available and recognised.
2. Provide education and support to undeveloped countries, where s.s.miners operate under less desirable environmental situations and outcomes.
Easy to say I know but I actually believe there maybe no choice. While I recognise the enormous work, effort and dedication of groups such as the PMAV, it would seem to me that their efforts will gradually be overwhelmed, by opposition support at a national and international level. Unless, of course, some form of legal recourse becomes accessible through reasonable means.
By the way that was no critisism of the PMAV. Far from it. They would be a key stakeholder in this process and retain the respect and acknowledgment they deserve throughout.
I believe the potential of the internet needs to be fully exercised. Bring the fight for small scale miners rights to the world and expose how many environmetalists are scammers, who in some instances are not only destroying jobs and a countries wealth potential but also are destroying the very environment itself.
Christ, fair dinkum, this post was only going to be a couple of paragraphs. I could ramble on for hours
.
(Handbrake on.)
Cheers,
Stewie.
??
…………………..
.