Parks Vic 2: ‘God’s in His heaven and all’s well’

Not that you’d know about pressure and stress by reading the Parks Victoria Report. As is the nature of these documents, it’s nicely illustrated, and full of good news. It might be unfair to call the general tone gaga, but not very unfair. Here’s the introduction, by Chairman of Parks Victoria Board, Andrew Fairley:

PV Annual Report: 'our throat has been cut, and we're feeling just fine.'

PV Annual Report: ‘our throat has been cut, and we’re feeling just fine.’

‘At Parks Victoria, we believe the future is one of excellence, so we have changed how we operated during 2014–15 to significantly improve the way we deliver our services. … The deployment of a new operating model and a new structure in our regions, complemented by realignment across our Corporate Services divisions, has brought considerable transformation to our business…The Parks Victoria Board is extremely excited by these changes…’ Page 8

Get it? What it means  is, ‘Government funding dropped from $96 million to $76 million last year, and we’re doing great!’

A more sober version of the same thing is contained in the financial part of the Report , which nevertheless manages to say that PV ‘achieved’ a deficit of $6 million:

‘Parks Victoria achieved a net result from transactions of $6.226 million deficit for the 30 June 2015 financial year. This was in line with expectations and follows a challenging financial period due to a decline in funding for Parks Victoria’s core operations [FOBIF emphasis].Throughout the 2014–15 financial year Parks Victoria continued to drive operational improvements through a restructure of its Regional Services operations. ..’ page 25

It’s pretty clear from this report that budget cuts are only one problem for Parks. Just as important is the corporate speak that dresses up savage budget cuts as ‘improvements’.

Posted in News | 2 Comments

Great response to our call for photos

We started off with 17 photos on our new Flickr page, Trees of the Mount Alexander Region, and after our call for photos in December we now have 73. The quality of the photos submitted has been impressive and, as you can see from the composite image below, there has been an amazing range of approaches to the subject of local trees.

There is still time to be part of this FOBIF venture. (If you do send photos though could you make them less than 1mg if possible.) Guidlelines for submission are here.

Click on the composite image below to view the Flickr website.

web photos flickr trees

Posted in Nature Observations, News | Comments Off on Great response to our call for photos

Call for photos!

The theme of the next FOBIF photo exhibition is Trees in the Mount Alexander Region.

TOGS in Castlemaine will host the exhibition in March 2016 and later in the year the Newstead Railway Arts Hub has kindly agreed host the same exhibition. Photos will be for sale to cover fobif costs.

Red Box (E. polyanthemos) Photo by Bernard Slattery, Faraday Hill, 31 August 2015

Red Box (E. polyanthemos) Photo by Bernard Slattery, Faraday Hill, 31 August 2015

So if you have any favourite photos of local trees send them along to FOBIF (info@fobif.org.au). There is also plenty of time to take new photos:  the closing date for the submission of photos is not till 31 January 2016.

We will place all photos we receive in a designated album on the FOBIF Flickr site as long as they fall within the guidelines. A FOBIF sub-committee will then select approximately 18 photos to be printed and framed in the two exhibitions.

If your photo is selected, as well as being included in the above two exhibitions you will receive a free mounted copy of your photo at the close of the second exhibition.

Guidelines

  1. Photo to include local indigenous tree/s within the Mount Alexander Region.
  2. A small file size is fine for Flickr but the photo will need to be at least 3 mg to be printed and included in the exhibitions. (At this stage only send files under 1mg)
  3. The tree/s need to be identified (we may be able to help with this) as well as the photo location and date.
  4. Photos can be closeups (bark, leaves, etc), individual trees, landscapes with trees as well as photos where flora and fauna associated with trees are the main feature.
White-plumed-Honeyeaters,-River-Red-gum-

White-plumed Honeyeater at partially built nest in River Red Gum, Loddon River. Photo by Geoff Park, 29 December 2014

We have already set up the Trees In Mount Alexander Flickr album so you can get an idea of the range of photos that fall within the guidelines.

Contact Bronwyn Silver at info@fobif.org.au or 54751089 for further information.

Posted in News | Comments Off on Call for photos!

Moss guide goes to reprint edition

FOBIF’s field guide to Mosses of dry forests in south eastern Australia has sold so well we’ve had to go to a reprint edition, adding a few improvements along the way. The new edition is on sale via this website, or through selected outlets.

funaria

Rusty brown patches of Funaria hygrometrica stand out in a dry landscape at Dalton’s Track. What’s Funaria? You have to buy the guide to find out. 

Posted in News | Comments Off on Moss guide goes to reprint edition

It’s Australia’s only National Heritage Park: so, should it be managed in a unique way?

What is a heritage landscape, and what difference does the tag ‘heritage’ make to the way a landscape should be managed?

Of course, all landscapes are ‘heritage’ or ‘cultural’ landscapes in one way or another: but there’s only one in Australia which has protected dual National Park/Heritage Park status, and that’s the Castlemaine Diggings.

That’s why we were disappointed in the VEAC Historic Places Investigation Draft Proposals Paper. This paper explicitly adopted a limited meaning for the phrase ‘heritage place’, one that seemed to exclude ‘landscape’ from consideration.

FOBIF has submitted a response to the Draft. It is set out below.

************************

Although we believe there are many constructive and sensible proposals in this paper, we wish to focus on what we believe to be a serious—and strange—deficiency: that is, the failure to acknowledge the particular challenges presented by cultural landscapes. In fact, it appears that the authors of the paper do not believe that these landscapes are ‘historic places’ at all, as witness this passage on page 31:

‘It is important to note that although VEAC’s focus is on the management of specific places on public land, Traditional Owners customarily have a broader view that every part of the landscape is of significance, including landforms and the whole landscape itself, not only those places where associations are evident or documented.’

Shallow shafts being reclaimed by nature, Sebastopol Creek: how is the bushland setting to be interpreted in the National Heritage Park?

Shallow shafts being reclaimed by nature, Sebastopol Creek: how is the bushland setting to be interpreted in the National Heritage Park?

We are not suggesting that our cultural landscapes can be considered in the same way that Indigenous people look at country: but the concession made in the above paragraph essentially concedes that VEAC has not considered ‘landscape’ at all in this draft.

We can’t see the reason for this exclusion: after all, on page 4 of the draft we read that ‘historic places’ include ‘historic sites or areas’. What is a landscape if it’s not an ‘area’? And in Appendix 2 [Historic groups or typology] we find Landscape area: natural and cultural historic landscapes. Other group categories in this Appendix are given numerous examples, but for some reason Landscape area has only one: Tower Hill.

There are significant areas of Victoria which are landscapes on the state and national heritage list: the Grampians/Gariwerd, the Alps, and the Castlemaine Diggings National Heritage Park. We therefore find it puzzling that the draft paper has failed to consider the peculiar challenges presented to managers of these areas.

Continue reading →

Posted in Fire Management, News | Comments Off on It’s Australia’s only National Heritage Park: so, should it be managed in a unique way?