National parks consider going commercial to fund conservatio

[maddog]

Tourism has long been part of the economic fabric of national parks.

But could allowing the timber industry to harvest trees be next on the agenda?

It's a challenging idea for many conservationists, but not all are resisting it.

With a government that's entering an age of austerity, commercial ventures are being seen as a vital way of keeping national parks functioning.

NSW MLC Robert Brown chaired a 2013 committee into NSW land management and says Australians have an ideological aversion to combining industry and conservation.

'We think we know how to do it better than anyone else in the world. Yet if you go to continental America, Europe, even New Zealand, they all seem to have vastly superior understanding of the potential of their protected areas,' he says.

Mr Brown argues for mixed use in national parks which he says would generate income for parks and better conservation outcomes....

Read more

Listen

[icefest]

Some sensitive developments can work - as evidenced by Uluru and the new Lake St Clair lodge (although that is on HEC land...)

If the forest is reason for the existence of the national park, then chopping it down would seem quite counterproductive, no? It's like allowing coral harvesting on the Great Barrier Reef.

Lastly:
in the US logging, mining and farming are prohibited in NPs
In NZ they are too.

In most western European countries, logging of primeval forests (old-growth) is prohibited.

Funding for all these is almost entirely via governmental funding.

It seems to me that this proposal does not stand up to any scientific rigour.

[Hallu]

I disagree that people do better in Europe... NPs are much wilder in Australia, with better maintained walking tracks and visitor centres. Yes, I'd agree that Canada and the US do better, but certainly not Europe. Although he did say "in understanding the potential of our NPs" by which he actually means "in squeezing the most amount of money possible out of them" and NOT "in protecting them". And in that regard, with logging in parks, cattle farming, and ski resorts, then yeah I guess Europe gets more money out of them... but they protect them less.

[vicrev]

Why not let the development mogals have the parks,they could put in Maccas,Ferris wheels,Theme Parks,all sorts of wonderful things you could take your kids to, instead of walking around, in beautiful surroundings,listening to the birds,enjoying nature in a pristine environment ........I really don't think the average Australian gives a toss about their parks,they never go near them,except occasionally drive into them for a picnic........they might go more if there was a theme park,or a Maccas to go to in the park. ......I was on the Great Barrier Reef a couple of months ago,they have succeeded well in stuffing that up .....This Government do not care about our natural wonders,I don't think the people do neither ................ Vicrev

[Hallu]

You can't just say "Aussies don't care about their parks". What you have in Australia is the same as in the US : a huge gap between people who love their parks, spend their holidays here, take their kids camping, or hike and take photos, and people who are more urban, for mondernity and progress, and don't realize how the parks are important. There's also a blury category, for example you can have a logger, industrial farmer or miner who fishes and hunts but still love the parks. To me, this is this last category of people that needs to be better understood, because this bloke can vote left or right, can be despised by both conservationists and industrialists, and can feel left out. We can't go on by saying "people don't care". No, people are simply misinformed, and/or uneducated. This was the same with the last election : people didn't vote Abbott because they're stupid, they voted Abbott because they were misinformed. It's only by showing what our parks are, how important they are, what they can give us, why we should preserve them for the sake of our children, that people will care about them. And it's definitely not by doubling camping fees, logging in them, or building huge industrial ports that directly impact them that we'll achieve that...

Now to go back to comparing Australia to the US, over there they managed to protect their parks because influencial people (economically or politically) happened to be conservationnists at heart : Theodore and FD Roosevelt, John Rockefeller JR, Stephen Mather etc... Australia, throughout its history, has been lacking people like that. They've also been lacking the people voice that Americans are keen to use whenever their parks are threatened. Throughout the 20th century they developped a National Park culture, which means anyone wanting to touch them will be met by a big "hands off, dude". Unfortunately in Australia there's still no country-wide "bugger off, mate" policy, industrialists still think it's possible to build big resorts, log or mine in the parks, we need to make it clear that it won't and can't happen.

[north-north-west]

So we have a politician and the NSW Parks Director - a political appointee - arguing for commercial exploitation. How does that equate to 'conservationists' supporting the concept?

[vicrev]

If people really cared about the parks,they would do something about it,you can talk about informing & educating them ,bottom line is, they just do not care .......

[perfectlydark]

Why does everything have to be moneytised for *&^%$# sake...

[Tony]

Robert Brown is a Fishers and Shooters Party politician, if you want to read a scary document read the Shooters and Fishers charter available on the F&S website, they are committed to opening up all NSW NP's to hunting, horses, 4 wheel drives, mining and just about every other form of exploitation.

Tony

[vicrev]

Surprise,surprise...........

[icefest]

I think I've been successfully baited.

[north-north-west]

I think I've been successfully baited.

Masterfully, I would say.