Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Friday, December 31, 2010

Are we really sure excluding cattle from the Barmah Forest is a good idea?

Are we really sure excluding cattle from the Barmah Forest is a good idea?

I would argue we can't be sure, and that the exclusion was done so fast & unilaterally that it likely to have a number of unforeseen affects.

Earlier this month I saw "Out of the Scientist's Garden" by Richard Stirzaker, CSIRO Land & Water Australia Senior Research Fellow at Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Irrigation Futures, in a local bookshop. Did a quiet skim in the bookshop and borough it.

Got I home and after a few more minutes browsing, I realised I'ld seen him speak & been to his then home in the early '90 to see his back yards 'Clever Clover' plot. There are photos of that back yard in the book.

On further reading I found the following passage on pages 171 & 172, in Chapter 20: Simplicity.

A couple of notes first. Roan are a large antelope that can get to over 250 kgs. The park being talked about is the Kurger National Park in South Africa.
Roan tend to favour area growing taller, less palatable grasses. They wander over large areas of savannah, picking the few tender young leaves from the grassy tussocks. Zebras and wildebeest are more like lawn mowers. They concentrate in huge numbers on the more fertile soils which more palatable grasses, and by grazing patches of the savannah heavily, they ensure a continuous supply of nutritious young leaves.

Roan must cover large distances to select their diet, but they are also very dependent on water. There are large area of park with grazing suitable for roan, but without rivers for the roan to drink. So park managers put in windmills to pump ground water into troughs. The plan worked spectacularly well. The roan spread out over a much larger area around the new sources of water. The still occurred at low densities because the grasses in the region tended to be of lower quality, but their numbers steadily increased.

Over the years, the new water attracted other grazers, particularly zebra and wildebeest. Although the dominant grass was not ideal for these species, they changed some areas with their constant heavy grazing, producing lawn-like areas of young, more palatable grass. In doing so, the density of herbivores increased, and this did not escape the attention of the loins.

Since zebra and wildebeest are the favoured prey of loins, they get a lot of practice spotting predictors and running to safety. Not so the roan. Hunting had been an unprofitable business for loins in the area prior to the new watering points, because of the low densities of prey. Now the loins switched their attention from the ever vigilant zebras to the unsuspecting roan. Roan numbers started to go down alarmingly.

The solution of adding new watering points was put into reverse. The bores were closed and, as predicted, the zebras drifted back to more favourable areas. As always the loins followed them, but not all the loins. A few prides took up residence in the roan areas. They changed their hunting habits. No longer could they hang around the plentiful herds and ambush them at waterholes on the short-grass plains. They started wandering widely, and met up frequently enough with the meandering roan to virtually wipe them out.

It all begs the question of is this being done just to satisfy political needs in Melbourne. The Kruger reversal was done after a few year. The Barmah reversal is being done after well over a century. The lesson of Kruger is that it should be done using a phased approach with control area to compare with. I don't mean little 10 by 10 metre experiments. That scale of research is just preliminary for the real experiment of introducing a new system to the forest.

Is removing the cattle a diversion for not getting water right? My understanding is that the Red Gums aren't getting inundated often enough and that particularly the higher areas are missing out. That cattle are only grazing pressure after the fact?

Cattle grazing would be removing fire fuel load too. Sound like swing-and-round-a-bouts to me.

Given the about story I would think the safest way to proceed is to divide the forest into many zones and spell zones from any grazing for 10 or 20 years after inundation in a long term rotation. Keep the fuel loads low while allowing long periods from germination & establishment after inundations.

What do you think?

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Doing a toaster from scratch

Found this hand made toaster url in my twitter stream. Love New Scientist, had to have a look.

An £5 manufactured artifact cost £1200 to put together from scratch. How far we have come in 250 years. Glad I don't have to be a Shepard because we hadn't got around to inventing fencing wire!

Now to figure out what I can do without to fit back into a 'Annual Solar Input' budget. You know the amount of energy get without burning fossil fuels!

Gnoll110

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Australia's move to draconian law

I'm in the process of reading Volumes I and II of Brad Lancaster's 'Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Beyond'. Volume I is Guiding Principles and Volume II is Water-Harvesting Earthworks. The yet to be published Volume III will covers roof catchments and cistern systems.

There is a very timely comment in the Introduction to Volume I, I want to share. The last two pages of the Introduction, pages 20 and 21, is a FAQ. What follows is one of the questions and the first paragraph of Brad's response.
Are there rainwater-harvesting building codes.

Surface water laws vary around the country (Brad is based in Arizona), so it's wise to check in with local authorities. In my area folks can harvest all the water that falls directly on their site, but there are restriction on harvesting runoff within established waterways that pass through their site. Some arid countries have draconian laws prohibiting the harvesting of rainwater runoff generated on site. In such instances, harvest the rain before it becomes runoff.
Over the last 30 years, the laws in Australia have gone from reasonably fair to draconian. Up until about 1980 water was tied to land title, it management and use was integrated into the landholders management practices for each individual farm. Due to changes in technology (bigger pumped and earth moving gear), some law reform was needed in the 80s. The states governments used these reforms to not tweak, but to grabbed water and make it a tradeable profit centre for their budgets.


Gnoll110

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

1 billion less for the Murray/Darling?

I'm on Twitter, also as Gnoll110

Someone commented about the polish of Sen. Penny Wong, on the Lateline interview last night. I saw that and jotted down the figures and programs that the money was to be spent on. Here is my twitter updates.

Did you notice that Tony had to correct her on the total combined cost of all of the programs.

... and that she omitted stating the cost of one of the programs, thus you couldn't cross check the maths.

... I went back to the papers (the Age in March) to get the missing figure.

If you add them up, they come to $100 million more that the total figure Tony used. 'Rounding' error? 12.9 billion vs 13 billion.

Personally I'm a substance over style person.

If you count up what is specifically eartagged for the Murray/Darling, it comes to 9 Billion (1 b. less than the old 10 b.)

I'm not saying any of the extra money (1 b., the Victorian sweetener, or the new 2.9/3.0 b.) won't be spent in the Murray/Darling, just that the detail is missing. 1.5 billion is ear-tagged for desal, so that defiantly won't be spent in the basin.

Personal I'm of the option that water brought off farmers shouldn't be used outside the basin. If you've got a better use for the water, you should be setting up in the basin and using it here. If you don't, you're just transferring more wealth and economic activity to the big state capitals. Repeating the mistakes of the last 200 years.

Gnoll110

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Permaculture: Doing things with feeling

Been reading the current edition of E. F. Schumacher’s 1973 classic “Small Is Beautiful”.

In chapter 3, “Resources for Industry”, I’ve just found the provoking paragraph.
It is fashionable today to assume that any figures about the future are better than none. To produce figures about the unknown, the current method is to make a guess about something or other – called an “assumption” – and to derive an estimate from it by subtle calculation. The estimate is the presented as the result of scientific reasoning, something far superior to mere guesswork. This is a pernicious practice which can only lead to the most colossal planning errors, because it offers a bogus answer where, in fact, an entrepreneurial judgement is required.

I think this is the beat argument I ever seen for doing things with/by feeling and being entrepreneurial.

It’s interesting to read a pre global warning environmental book. One of the core factors in the current debate just isn’t there. Yet the core logic and directing is as current today as it was then, during the first oil shock.

Well worth the read.


Gnoll110

Sunday, December 31, 2006

Also in Britain, today...

Britain finishes repaying the last of the World War II loans from the US.

What is being repay these last few day of 2006 are the last of the recovery loans made to Britain by the US and Canada in 1945 and 1946.

The non-monetary condition the US attached to its loans to Britain during this period cost Britain a lot.

Some press coverage here, here and here.


Some critics, including Lord Keynes, saw the loan as a means used by America to subjugate Britain after the war.


It appears I agree with one of the greatest economists of the 20th Century too.


"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests."

Lord Palmerston PM (twice) & English Statesman, 1784-1865


There is another quote the goes something like, "Leaders have friends, nations only have interests", but I can't find it today!


Gnoll110

The fall of Rome...1600 years ago today!

On the 31th December 406 AD, Vandels, Alans and Suevew crossed into the Roman Empire for the first time.

On this night, the Rhine froze solid in the Mainz area. For my this date marks the begining of the Fall of the Empire.

They move westward into the empire. They isolated Britannia from Rome. First, Rome withdrew the 2 legions, one at a time. By 410AD, undefended, Roman rule ended in Britannia.

An interesting date. The fall of empires are always interesting times.


Gnoll110

The fall of Rome...1600 years ago today!

On the 31th December 406 AD, Vandels, Alans and Suevew crossed into the Roman Empire for the first time.

On this night, the Rhine froze solid in the Mainz area. For my this date marks the begining of the Fall of the Empire.

They move westward into the empire. They isolated Britannia from Rome. First, Rome withdrew the 2 legions, one at a time. By 410AD, undefended, Roman rule ended in Britannia.

An interesting date. The fall of empires are always interesting times.


Gnoll110