Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

As we’ve previously reported, work is under way to produce a new management plan for Kalimna Park, in the Balak Kalik Manya (Walking Together) project. A progress report by Harley Douglas, manager of the project, is published below.

It’s worth noting in this context that the National Royal Commission on disasters (see below) pays careful attention to Indigenous land management as an important set of practices which could help in fire protection and landscape restoration in increasingly severe conditions:

‘Indigenous land management aims to protect, maintain, heal and enhance healthy and ecologically diverse ecosystems, productive landscapes and other cultural values. It is not solely directed to hazard reduction.’

Recommendation 18 reads, in part:

‘Australian, state, territory and local governments should engage further with Traditional Owners to explore the relationship between Indigenous land and fire management and natural disaster resilience.’

Harley Douglas’s report is as follows:

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

The Walking Together- Balak Kalik Manya Project is a four-year project committed to writing site-specific management plans for two sites within Dja Dja Wurrung Country; Kalimna Park in Castlemaine and Wildflower Drive in Bendigo. Both sites were selected due to their proximity to growing townships and the increasing pressures of urbanisation encroaching both park boundaries. The project is exploring how we can increase community connection with nature, how to improve visitation rates and encourage appropriate use of these sites, all while maintaining and improving biodiversity. The project will promote Djaara employment and assist in Djaara reconnecting with traditional practices of land management. For more information on the project please see this short video- https://vimeo.com/441201115

Continue reading →

The Commission has made over a hundred recommendations.  The question is: how many of them will actually be implemented?

This will depend on how much political pressure is put on to Government: but you can get a sobering clue from these two quotes from the report:

‘The 2004 National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management, said that, to reduce natural hazard risk from bushfires: Planning processes [should] ensure that built assets are not placed in areas of high fire risk and that structures meet standards of construction that reduce their vulnerability.’

[2020] ‘Currently, all states permit homes to be built in bushfire and flood prone areas, and the degree to which planning or building standards act to mitigate risk varies across jurisdictions’

So: given that it’s pretty obviously not a good idea to build a home in a dangerous area, and that the point has been clearly made, not once, but several times, why does it still happen?

The commission gives us an insight with the following observation: ‘privacy and market impact considerations suggest possible adverse consequences of detailed risk exposure and vulnerability information. For example, revealing the risk profile of properties could potentially affect their value, and could expose state, territory and local governments to liability.’

So houses can be built in disaster prone areas, and there’s a certain shyness in talking about the resultant dangers, because of the financial consequences! Of course, there are financial risks when a house is burned down, or swept away in a flood—but maybe these are taken less seriously?

There are consequences that are almost comic:

‘…there is still clear evidence of recent planning decisions placing communities at a known and obvious risk of disaster. For example, development in the suburb of Idalia in Townsville is only partially completed, yet it was significantly inundated by flood in February 2019.’

The practice of disregarding environmental risk is, it seems, built into our culture—and it doesn’t date from yesterday. Check out Governor Macquarie’s problems with settlers who insisted on building on flood plains in 1817 here.

The report does recommend that ‘State and territory governments should continue to deliver, evaluate and improve education and engagement programs aimed at promoting disaster resilience for individuals and communities.’ It’s fair to assume that such education programs would include increasing understanding of how to live constructively with nature, instead of believing we can beat it into submission.

We can only hope that the Royal Commission’s recommendations help shift both public attitudes and political will on the matter.

As mentioned in a previous post FOBIF has decided to have a Zoom AGM on Monday November 9 at 7.30. Members and supporters who wish to attend can register by emailing FOBIF (info@fobif.org.au). We would like people to register 48 hours before the meeting. People who have registered will be sent a login link before the meeting. 

You can find more information about the meeting here.

Columbine Creek walk, July 2020

A couple of years ago we expressed surprise at the apparently supine attitude of the state Labor government before the hunting lobby. Its so called ‘deer strategy‘, for example,  was ‘more concerned to gratify the hunting lobby than to respond to an increasingly evident environmental mess. It is puzzling and depressing that the state government should be concerned to pander to this lobby, whose allies are actively campaigning against it in the state election.’

Another matter on which the government seems to be paralysed is duck shooting.

Recreational shooting of birds is banned in NSW, Queensland, WA and the ACT, but not in Victoria. FOBIF has lent its support to the letter below, signed by 42 conservation related groups:

****

At their November 2019 conference, the Victorian Labor Party committed to review recreational native waterbird shooting in Victoria.

We call on the Andrews’ Government to honor their commitment.

Here’s why.

Cruelty. Numerous studies including by ballistics experts, show at least one in four of the hundreds of thousands of birds shot each year in Victoria will not be killed outright. Many will flap away to die a slow painful death elsewhere. Many others will live to suffer permanent injuries.

Sustainability. Populations of our native waterbirds – many species unique to our country – have been decimated. Allowing recreational native waterbird shooting is irresponsible if we care about biodiversity or leaving the next generation any hope of enjoying the birdlife we do today.

Biodiversity. Significant numbers of threatened and protected species are killed as collateral damage of Victoria’s recreational duck shooting seasons including Australia’s rarest waterfowl, the Freckled duck.

Safety. It is not possible to monitor the thousands of public waterways where recreational waterbird shooting is allowed, placing our wildlife and the public at risk. More people live around the waterways now than they did in the 1950’s and many have expressed fears about their personal safety during duck shooting.

Economics. Studies show there would be an economic benefit in banning the activity in Victoria, as it has already been banned in other states. With rural communities crying out for a financial lifeline and 866,000 domestic tourists engaging in birdwatching last year, it makes sense to protect our natural assets not kill them off.

Democracy. Less than half of one percent of the population shoot ducks. Meanwhile professional polls continue to show that the majority of Victorians – city and country – want duck shooting to end.

FOBIF has decided to have a Zoom AGM on Monday November 9 at 7.30. Members and supporters are cordially invited to attend. You’ll need to register to do this.

Those who register will be sent a log in link, in the manner of the many  Zoom meetings we’ve had to become used to over these last months.  To register, simply email a request with your email address to info@fobif.org.au

FOBIF’s financial report will be delivered at the meeting, as will the President’s report on the year’s activities. We have decided, however, not to have a guest speaker. We hope to be able to have a ‘live’ meeting early next year, where members will be able to share the same area, in the traditional way. At this meeting , we plan to launch one of our new publications: watch this space.

Nominations are now open for the FOBIF committee. A special form is not required: a sheet of paper containing the nominee’s name,  the signatures of two nominators (both FOBIF members), and the signature of the nominee accepting the nomination, is all you need. You can send it to Box 322 Castlemaine, give it personally to a committee member, or email us at info@fobif.org.au, and we’ll come and pick it up…assuming you’re in the Mount Alexander Shire.

Positions open are: President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and ordinary committee members.

To vote at the meeting you will of course need to be a member.

If you have a special interest in our local bushlands, and a bit of energy to spare, we urge you to consider standing for the committee: there’s a place for you!

Our monthly FOBIF walks have now been going for more than 20 years. This is a photo of the March 2009 bushwalk led by local geologist Clive Willman. Liz Eagar is holding up the map and Margaret Panter, former walks organiser, is taking notes.. Clive is still leading walks for FOBIF but unfortunately his 2020 excursion had to be postponed. We hope to run it next year.

A new management plan for Kalimna Park will be released for consultation before the end of the year. The plan, part of the Balak Kalik Manya (Walking Together) project, is part of ongoing indigenous co management  in the park.

Not surprisingly, surveys have shown that Kalimna Park is mostly used for exercise and immersion in nature. Although rubbish dumping is a recurring problem, the park is relatively free of nuisances like rogue trailbike riders and destructive four wheel drive activity. This may be a function of the fact that the park is extremely popular, and it’s rare that you go there without seeing someone mooching about.

Well attended Zoom meeting on September 29 was briefed on progress so far on production of the management plan. Project co-ordinator Harley Douglas answered questions from attendees on issues including significant indigenous heritage sites, weed and fire management, the implications of a push to World Heritage status for the goldfields, and resourcing. The project has been funded from a grant designed to cover a similar management for Wildflower Drive in Bendigo.

The Balak Kalik Manya project forms an important part of the introduction of Indigenous co-management on public lands in Jaara country–itself part of Traditional Owner co-management statewide. The following article on this important trend is from the VNPA Parkwatch magazine, and is written by Phil Ingamells:

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

Victoria has been quietly undergoing a radical change in management arrangements for our finest remaining ‘natural’ areas. Most of our national parks now have formal, or sometimes informal, joint management agreements with Victoria’s various Traditional Owner groups. In August this year, the Victorian Government reached a settlement agreement with the Taungurung people of central Victoria. It gives the Traditional Owners the right to jointly manage one of Victoria’s oldest national parks, Mount Buffalo National Park, as well as part of the Alpine National Park and Kinglake National Park, all of Heathcote Graytown National Park, Lake Eildon National Park, Mount Samaria State Park, Cathedral Range State Park, and some smaller reserves.

Settlement agreements have now been reached with many Aboriginal communities across Victoria, and they have been engaged in the development of joint management plans for some time.

Continue reading →

FOBIF has submitted an objection to the planning  permit application for a new supermarket in Duke Street Castlemaine. Our submission is essentially a repeat of our objection to a previous version of this permit application. We said at the time that ‘ we have no opinion on the wisdom of a second large supermarket in the town, or its location, or its design: we have to trust to the competence of council on these matters.

‘Our objection is solely related to the proposed landscape plantings for the development’.

Our second objection states: ‘FOBIF objected to a previous version of this application in July, on the grounds … that the landscaping proposal included the planting of several environmental weeds, something we have enough  of already.

‘The new application seems to have deleted one of these plants—the Peppercorn—but left the others.

‘We therefore repeat our objection: this proposal should not be approved until the proponents accept a responsible practice on the matter of landscape planting. This should not be hard to do, and we’re at a loss as to why the proponents appear reluctant to do it.’

And we are at a loss. You would think that respect for ecology would be a basic part of the formation of a landscaper…but it seems this is not always the case.

‘Environmental infrastructure’ is one of those phrases that makes the eyes glaze over, but actually, all it means is: things that help you enjoy good places. That is, bush tracks, ways of enjoying parks and gardens, and so on. As we’ve suggested many times, money spent on such things is not a cost, it’s an investment. If COVID 19 has made anything clear, that’s it: healthy natural places are essential for people’s mental and physical wellbeing, and it’s about time government budgets acknowledged this fact.

Castlemaine to Maldon walking track: money spent on providing access to healthy environments is an investment, not a cost.

FOBIF has made a short submission to Parliament’s enquiry into ‘environmental infrastructure.’ The gist of our submission is below:

Given the emphasis on population increase in the terms of reference, we note that the population of Victoria has increased by over a million in the last 12 years. In that time, Parks Victoria’s staffing has remained more or less frozen at 2008 levels.  Though the situation at DELWP is more complex, given its fire control responsibilities, we believe that as far as constructive management of bushland is concerned the situation is similar. We urge the committee to seriously examine the nature of funding of public land management.

Funding for public land managers is a key factor in the quality of environmental infrastructure close to townships, for very simple reasons:

1. Management of tracks and trails has to be more intensive: our observation is that road management by Parks Victoria and DELWP is often crude and destructive of adjacent bushland. We are forced to believe that this is a consequence of using untrained, unsupervised or simply uninformed personnel. Of course, the cure for this is increased funding.
2. Environments near townships need very careful management for fire prevention and mitigation: it’s not possible to light a large area ‘fuel reduction burn’ and let it do its thing inside the fire perimeter, because proximity to houses always poses a risk, and in any case large burned areas are a negative effect on amenity. The solution to this is treatment in much smaller patches…which costs money.
3. Nuisance behaviours like rubbish dumping and rogue trail bike riding are on the increase. Without a more frequent ranger presence these are bound to increase. Ranger numbers are deplorably low.

We have two further points:

1. Landcare groups in Castlemaine and Campbells creek have engaged in ambitious revegetation programs over the last two decades, with spectacularly successful results, including two widely used Creek trails. These groups need support.
2. We support the introduction of indigenous co management into our public lands, and specifically the ‘Walking together’ program designed to reform the management of Kalimna Park, adjacent to Castlemaine.