wilderness threatened by fire and tourism · Director’s report TELL YOUR STORY! To give the TCT a boost in membership and support, Heather Cassidy will be putting her film-making

may number

2016 336 the tasmanian conservationistcaring for Tasmania since 1968

6

tasmanian conservation trust

Rosny Hill update Forestry Tasmania’s FSC application stallsResponsible firewoodFreycinet National Park planFire in the WildernessClimate Change planRussell River degradationContaining catsWorld heritage missionRoadkillTyre recycling

IN THIS ISSUE

wilderness threatened byfire and tourism

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily those of the tasmanian conservation trust inc (TCT).

Due to circumstances beyond her control our copy-editor and proofreader does not always see every article before it goes to press. We apologise to readers for any errors appearing in the newsletter – past, present and future – and to Janice Bird for any consequent damage to her professional reputation.

Copying

We permit photocopying of all original material in the tasmanian conservationist.

Feel free to make use of our news and articles, but please acknowledge the source.

Contributions

We encourage readers to submit articles of interest for publication. Articles should preferably be short (up to 600 words) and well illustrated. Please forward copy on CD or USB stick or by email if possible. Guidelines for contributors are available from the TCT office or online at www.tct.org.au.

Advertising

We accept advertising of products and services that may be of interest to our readers. Our rates are GST inclusive:

1 issue 2 issues 3 issues

full page $250 $450 $600

half page $150 $280 $400

quarter page $110 $200 $280

Details

Design template: Kelly Eijdenberg, Poco People Layout: Robyn McNicol Copy-editing and proofreading: Janice Bird

Circulation: 375

BA (Hons) Literature IPEd Distinguished EditorEDITING AND PROOFREADING, SPECIALISING IN CONSERVATION ISSUES

reports • management plans • newsletters • booksp (03) 6234 6569 e [email protected]

Advice to TCT members making electronic

payments for membership/donations

If making electronic payments directly

into the TCT bank account, please ensure

you include your name as the reference

so that your payment can be correctly

identified and receipted!

Thanks to Bio-Distributors – Biodynamic and Organic Wholesalers of Tasmania for their support of our newsletter. www.biodistributors.com.au

At Monotone we support environment conservation and have committed ourselves to passing Level 2 Sustainable Green Print, then proceeding to International Standard 14001. Key areas of change implemented at Monotone will be to reduce our land-fill waste dramatically, recycle and re-use as a priority and use environment-friendly consumables.

The TCT would like to thank Montone for its in-kind support with the retail-cost printing of the newsletter and the printing of our letterhead.

Email version of newsletter

The tasmanian conservationist is now available in PDF format for members who would prefer an electronic version.

Please send us an email at [email protected] including your name and postal address and the email address you would like us to use, and we will email the tasmanian conservationist to you.

Our mistake last issue

LEC photograph, page 1 incorrectly attributed to Robyn McNicol

Cover story:

Fire in the wilderness Photo: Pencil pines at Lake Mackenzie before 2016 fires by Rob Blakers

Peter McGlone

First, let me apologise for the long period since the last newsletter. We have had a few changes here at the TCT, most significant being the departure last December of long serving TCT officer manager Trish McKeown. Those who knew Trish would know she didn’t want a great fuss being made about her, but I do feel it necessary to say thank you to her publicly on behalf of all TCT members, councillors and staff, past and present.

We hope this bumper edition makes up for the delay. We now plan to produce a newsletter twice a year, continuing in the format of a journal with in- depth articles, supplemented with more frequent email bulletins.

In this this issue, we are particularly pleased to have several invited contributors writing in depth about matters that are not adequately covered in the media. Former Parks and Wildlife Service fire planner Adrian Pyrke brings us a timely feature ‘Fire in the Wilderness’, and anglers Geoffrey Swan and Richard Dax have written about their long struggle to protect the Russell River from the impacts of a freshwater fish farm.

We are also please to include two articles featuring community people doing great things for the environment: Claire Edwards, a progressive firewood merchant; and Penny Milburn, a wildlife-conscious cat-owner.

Next time we hope to follow Adrian’s article with one about the state government’s fuel-reduction burning program. We have heard from several

sources that some burns are having a negative impact on biodiversity values, as a result of a rush to burn large areas without proper environmental safeguards.

One issue that we cannot cover in appropriate detail in this issue is the Statewide Planning Scheme. As we go to print, the TCT is in the process of finalising its submission and we will alert members to this when it is completed.

Wherever you look at the moment, reserved land is under threat from tourism developments; this issue includes updates on tourism threats to Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area, Freycinet National Park and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. There is much good news in regard to management of the TWWHA but, as the article on page17 says, tourism may still be the biggest threat.

Director

Director’s report

TELL YOUR STORY!

To give the TCT a boost in membership and support, Heather Cassidy will be putting her film-making skills to use, by making a short

promo video to kick off each film screened at Tassie eco Film Festival 2016.

But she needs your help. We know you have stories about your highlights from the TCT’s history, and what inspired you to join in the first place.

If it inspired you, it will inspire others. So help us to strengthen the future of the TCT: get in touch with us and let us capture your story, because together we

can find and inspire the next Tasmanian conservationists.

Contact: [email protected] or (03) 6234 3552

We are making a promo video for TeFF

Peter on Cape Barren Island 2014

tasmanian conservationist May 2016 1

In the August 2015 Tasmanian Conservationist (issue no. 335) I wrote about a very worrying proposal for a large tourism development in the Rosny Hill Nature Recreation Area, on Hobart’s eastern shore. This very important, if small, reserve of 20 hectares includes numerous threatened flora and significant grasslands and forest communities. The proposed development would have a footprint of about 30% of the reserves area, including 120 accommodation suites, a function centre catering for 300 people and a 150-seat restaurant. The development proposal has not yet been submitted to the Clarence City Council but the local community has not been idly waiting for it.

Early in the new year I approached a few local Montagu Bay residents who were concerned about the development, to suggest that they seek rezoning of the reserve from Recreation Zone to Environmental Management Zone, to better reflect the level of security and management of natural values that they expected. Some of

Two futures for Rosny HillA campaign of rezoning by local residents

Peter McGlone

View from Rosny Hill Photo: John Hodgman

these people have been actively involved with managing Rosny Hill for 20 years and spoke very passionately against the development at the public meeting held last May by the proponent.

With some assistance from the Environmental Defenders Office and myself, the group composed a letter, which constituted a rezoning application, and got 231 local residents to sign in support of it. The application has gone to council but the process cannot commence until the council gets the consent of the state government as the ultimate owner of the land. The local residents are now lobbying the state government to give consent for the rezoning to be considered.

2 tasmanian conservationist May 2016

In the months since the last newsletter, the TCT has gone through a few changes, not least of which is the departure of Trish McKeown, the long-serving office manager of 18 years, and the arrival of her successor, Heather Cassidy.

Who is this ring-in, you ask? Well don’t worry, the TCT is in good hands. Heather has her Tassie credentials as an eighth-generation Tasmanian (acknowledging how that pales in comparison with our Indigenous readers). She also has good conservation credentials as the daughter of the late Mike Cassidy, an important player in the fight against the Tamar Valley pulp mill, among other things.

Heather has never known a time in which caring for the environment, in one way or another, has not been a big part of her life. From a childhood that included maintaining an ecosystem for tadpoles, to holiday excursions for days at a time into places such as the Walls of Jerusalem, Lake St Clair and Cradle Mountain. These were always accompanied by her father’s tuition in environmental science, cementing a sense of our place in, and impact on, the planet.

Heather’s dad, Mike, was also the convener of the Launceston branch of The Wilderness Society during the Franklin River campaign. And it is his involvement in that movement which has brought Heather back to our beautiful state.

Heather has been working in the film and TV industry in Brisbane, the Gold Coast and Melbourne for the past decade, on shows such as Terra Nova, Nowhere Boys and Bespoke. But when Mike died in 2012, he left Heather the diary of his 1983 wilderness rafting adventure on the Franklin River over 18 days, with 14 days of supplies. He joined the blockade, was arrested, and finally arrived home only a couple of weeks before Heather was born into a world forever changed. All of this inspired Heather to return and retrace his journey and film it in a documentary called A River Made Us, which aims to rediscover the stories of those activists and inspire a new generation.

Heather is keen to chat to our members who have stories from the Franklin campaign, so please get in touch. And she’d also be thrilled if you follow the film ‘arivermadeus’ on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram.

Joining the TCT staff as office manager presented the opportunity for Heather to work part-time to support her filmmaking. However, the film’s themes, and the challenges faced by the Tasmanian Conservation Trust seem more and more in alignment.

Heather CassidyTCT Office Administrator

TCT’s new office managerIntroducing Heather Cassidy

Heather with her father, Mike Cassidy Photo:Jill Cassidy

The Tasmanian Conservation Trust has been around for 48 years, and its future relies on a new generation of people becoming involved. And with the environmental issues facing everyone today, this new generation will only benefit from the archive of historical wins and losses, the what-worked and the what-did-not, the knowledge, the wisdom and the experience that you, our members and supporters bring. We all need this to reinforce us and remind us that we can win on conservation and environmental issues and, what’s more, this is how.

It is our job to make the TCT accessible and visible, invite people to join us, and possibly even shape us, so we can do all this again for the next 48 years and beyond.

Heather is keen to chat to our members who have stories from the Franklin campaign, so please get in touch. And she’d also be thrilled if you follow the film ‘arivermadeus’ on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram.

‘‘


Peter McGlone

Forestry Tasmania’s Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Forest Management audit report, produced by auditing company SCS Global Services, was released by Forestry Tasmania on 1 March 2016. The state government responded by acknowledging that 90% of the auditor’s forest management standards were met, missing the point that there were 12 major non-conformities and just one prevents certification being granted.

The TCT has received advice that it will take up to 12 months for FT to adapt its management practices to respond to the non-conformities. FT has not communicated with us about how they will address the audit report and whether they will consult us or other environmental non-governmental organisations. The auditors gave advice in their report that stakeholder consultation should be considered in responding to non-conformities.

The process for FT to respond to the FSC auditors report is not at all clear and we are seeking clarification from FSC Australia and FT.

If FT responds properly to the audit report, it will reduce, by an unknown amount, the area of forest available for production and therefore presumably affect FT’s capacity to maintain wood supply to industry. Will the state government be able to stomach a change to legislation that reduces these legislated wood volumes?

The non-conformities relate to many of the concerns raised by the TCT, Bob Brown Foundation and Markets for Change in our collective submission and presentation to the auditing company SCS Global Services. Most relate to threatened species and old-growth forest protection.

• FT’s pre-harvest surveys for threatened fauna are not adequate and must be improved.

• FT’s current method for assessing landscape-level impacts of forestry operations, the landscape context planning system, is not adequate and FT must modify or replace its current approach.

• FT does not have a systematic method, at the coupe level, for identifying nesting habitat for the swift parrot and masked owls and must develop one.

• Conservation zones and other protection measures employed for maximising protection of threatened species and their habitats, particularly the swift parrot, are inadequate and must be improved.

• FT must reduce the rate at and extent to which it is harvesting old-growth and mature forest.

• FT must modify and enhance coupe-level environmental planning, assessment and monitoring procedures so that threatened species (particularly wide-ranging landscape

Photo: Courtesy of Forest Practice Authority

Forestry Tasmania’s FSC application hits obstacles

Are you interested in history or journalism?

We’d love to welcome you into the office as our newest volunteer.

We’ve started the process of digitising the early newsletters and day files of the TCT to make their content more accessible to our staff, council and members.

We are also looking for people who might like to help with some data entry as we update our database and help us improve our contact with members.

We will provide all the systems and assistance you need, plus endless cups of tea or coffee.

Contact Heather Cassidy on (03) 6234 3552

VOLUNTEER HERE!

species) and other high conservation values are consistently identified and appropriately protected.

• Field workers appropriately trained in the procedures should be employed to identify and protect sites of special significance to Indigenous peoples.


The TCT has long advocated for better management and regulation of firewood collection. As well as encouraging other heating methods, we have supported a move away from sourcing wood from old-growth trees (alive, dead or fallen) because of their importance for biodiversity, towards using young regrowth trees from forests that are not habitats of threatened species or ecological communities. Until recently, my support of plantation wood for firewood had been dismissed (see below).

The Advocate newspaper ran an impressive article recently regarding the increase in illegal taking of firewood, particularly on Forestry Tasmania land, in the lead-up to winter (‘Winter firewood warming’, 30 March 2016). The impressive part was the interview with local Wynyard firewood seller Claire Edwards.

Claire’s business, Edwards Landscaping and Supplies, guarantees that: ‘All wood is dried for at least eight months before we sell it.’ In my view, eight months, including one summer, is quite adequate to dry wood ready to burn efficiently, with minimal air pollution. This is the first time I have heard of a business giving such a guarantee, and hopefully it will inspire other wood suppliers to adopt the practice.

She also said, ‘The timber is sourced from logging coupes that have a forest practices plan’, guaranteeing that the wood has been taken legally and is not from reserves or stolen from private land. Claire’s approach may not be perfect but it is probably best practice.

While the Forest Practices System is far from perfect, using FPPs means that impacts on natural values are assessed and measures are taken to reduce them. Most firewood collectors do not carry out any assessment and probably make no concessions to natural values. In fact, permits are not required for harvesting less than one hectare or 100 tonnes per year.

Claire told me that very little dead standing wood is available and her business generally uses regrowth wood. Most regrowth wood is green, hence the need for long-term drying. Some wood is salvaged residue from logging operations that would otherwise be left to rot or burnt.

Her business has been contracted to remove forest prior to houses being built (under a FPP), which at least makes use of wood that might otherwise have been wasted. It probably results in a better impact assessment than would be done by most councils.

Interestingly, Claire’s business also acquires some wood from hardwood plantations where the timber is too low in quality for pulp or saw logs. She says that plantation trees have the advantage of being easier to split and can be easier to access and handle.

Peter McGlone

Buying wood from a reputable wood yard means that you know where to go if you have complaints about the load size or quality. We often hear of customers who have bought green or underweight or under volume loads from roadside sellers who are unidentifiable and cannot be contacted.

One of the drivers of bad practice in firewood collection is that many smaller operators cannot afford to hold large stockpiles. They respond to increased demand during winter by sourcing wood from old-growth trees, in particular dead standing timber that is dry and ready to burn, which negatively impacts the biodiversity values of those areas.

In 2004 the TCT was a member of the state government’s Firewood Working Group. We advocated that the proposed Firewood Action Plan should include government financial support for the establishment of wood yards and stockpiling. The Firewood Action Plan was never completed and this idea never got political traction.

In the current political climate it might more effective to lobby businesses directly to apply best practice firewood collection. We will continue to promote good practices, such as Claire’s, in the hope that it encourages others.

Responsible firewood collection

‘‘ Interestingly she sources some wood from hardwood plantations... She says that plantation trees have the advantage that they are easier to split and can be easier to access and handle.

Claire Edwards, with her dog Abbie, in front of a firewood stack. Photo: Cordell Richardson from The Advocate


With just a few days before submissions were due on the proposed amendments to the Freycinet National Park Management Plan, the TCT discovered the true implication of the proposal. In our media release on Sunday 29 February 2016, the TCT exposed the true consequences of the proposed amendments, which go well beyond the government’s stated objective of allowing expansion of Freycinet Lodge.

The existing plan prohibits any new accommodation outside of existing leases or licences, but the proposed amendments would allow the minister to issue licences or leases for new built accommodation, without limit, opening up the entire Coles Bay Visitor Services Zone (see photo) to new built accommodation.

The consultation document released by the Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) justifies the changes only in relation to facilitating the Freycinet Lodge expansion, and does not state the full implications of the changes. Attempting to make dramatic changes such as this to the management plan for a national park, without explaining it to the public, is in our view seriously misleading and a dangerous precedent to set. The TCT can rightly take credit for discovering and exposing this misleading action.

We do not know whether this was a deliberately misleading act or done in error. And we do not know who was responsible, PWS or the minister’s office. But it does seem unlikely that such a basic error would have been made by the PWS planners.

According to the PWS, 463 representations were

received. These include a number from TCT members in response to our submission template – thank you to all who made a submission, particularly those who sent us a copy.

The Director of the PWS is still reviewing all representations and is preparing a report. The Director’s report will then be sent to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for consideration. The Commission may hold public hearings.

The TCT’s submission opposed the proposal to open up the Coles Bay Visitor Services Zone to new accommodation, as it would lead to major impacts on the environment and recreational use. We also opposed any attempt to limit the amendment to just allowing an expansion of Freycinet Lodge: although preferable to the broader change, it would give an unfair advantage to a single business operator and probably lead to more requests for development in the park.

We stated that, if the government proceeds with the proposed amendments, it must hold another period of public consultation, proactively and intensively consult all stakeholders, and provide a full explanation of the implications of the changes.

An alternative process

In its submission, the TCT suggested that a fairer approach would be for PWS to consult the tourism industry and the general public to assess the demand for new built accommodation in the Coles Bay region, the potential for it to be provided outside and inside the national park, and what type of accommodation development might be acceptable (such as replacing

TCT exposes flaws in Freycinet plan changes

The yellow area denotes the Coles Bay Visitor Service Zone within Freycinet National Park. Proposed management amendments would remove a longstanding policy that protects this zone from expanded and additional private leases for commercial purposes. Photo and map overlay by the Freycinet Action Network in March 2016.


The wheels are in motion for the next Tasmanian eco Film Festival 2016. We announced the dates, 17 to 20 November, last month, and submissions are already steadily coming in.

I have been spending time reaching out to sponsors, viewing films (lots of them) and picking the perfect VIPS.

Of course TeFF 2016 is at the State Cinema this year again. Where else would we screen! Sara James, the Emmy Award–winning foreign correspondent and ABC commentator who MC’d and facilitated all of our Q&As last year, is coming back this year, too. And we have some new supporting committee members.

Joining us this year is Abi Binning, General Manager of Wide Angle Tasmania, and Lisa Gormley, Australian actress and environmental advocate. John Kelly from the State Cinema and Tony Scherer from Sprout Tasmania and Frogmore Creek Wines are both on board again this year.

Unfortunately I can’t say much more at this point except that the quality of films, coupled with the strong support TeFF is garnering, is truly exciting.

So this year TeFF will continue to grow as a non-politically affiliated, intelligent, artistic and entertaining festival.

We do have room for volunteers in lots of different areas. Send me an email if you have a few hours to spare.

Kyia ClaytonTeFF Director

[email protected]

www.tassieff.com

TeFF Update 2016existing built structures). We stated that it was inappropriate for the government to propose an amendment to a management plan in response to a request from a single business.

A possible outcome of the TCT’s proposed process may be that areas within the national park are identified as being acceptable for new accommodation developments. If the zone provisions of the management plan are amended to reflect this, then the RACT and any other developer could be invited to make a proposal through a competitive tender process. A thorough assessment would be made of the impacts of successful proposals prior to a lease being issued.

The government’s response

The government has responded to criticism of the proposed removal of constraints on development, by saying that the management plan retains development controls which require any proposal for built accommodation in the Visitor Services Zone to be assessed and potentially go through a public consultation process. Our view is that it is vital to have development constraints at the zoning level as well as having a development assessment process.

However, the government’s claims regarding the requirement for public consultation are not necessarily accurate. Only developments assessed as ‘level four’, under the PWS Reserve Activity Assessment process, are required to be subject to a public consultation process. Furthermore, decisions regarding the appropriate assessment level are at the discretion of the PWS and are not subject to public input.

Consultation with RACT

We sent a copy of our submission to the RACT CEO, Harvey Lennon, who subsequently requested a meeting with me. Harvey gave me a good opportunity to explain our concerns and was willing to listen to my proposal for an alternative approach to addressing the apparent need for new accommodation developments.

Because the RACT’s Board will make the final decision in regard to their development proposal, the TCT has requested, along with five other concerned conservation and community groups, a meeting with the RACT’s President and Board. The response we received seems to leave open that possibility, once the RACT has reassessed its development intentions.

There are two outcomes we are hoping to achieve: that the RACT will withdraw its application and reconsider the Lodge extensions; and that the government will withdraw its proposed changes to the management plan.

We hope to continue our discussions with the RACT, as it is likely that the government will only alter its plans if the RACT withdraws its proposal.

Peter McGlone

TeFF VOLUNTEERS NEEDED ROLES & ASSISTANCE FOR THE FOLLOWING:

DIRECTOR OF MARKETING AND MEDIA

DIRECTOR OF EVENTS

DIRECTOR OF VIP HOSPITALITY

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMMING

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMNET & OPERATIONS

contact Kyia: [email protected]

or via TCT Office: (03) 6234 3552


The bushfire situation in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) has worsened significantly in the last 40 years. In the early 1980s, malicious and spiteful lighting of fires was rampant, particularly along the Lyell Highway, although this human malevolence seems to have largely abated. Accidental ignitions from campfires and other human folly require vigilant controls, but they are not the most significant threat. Since the early 2000s fires started by dry lightning have become the most significant concern. A common pattern, apparently rare until the last 15 years, is a dry lightning thunderstorm followed by a day of very hot, dry and windy weather. In February 2007 dry lightning started several fires in southwest Tasmania that rapidly developed into huge conflagrations. One of these, the Reynolds Creek fire, travelled over 30km in a day. Another large fire started on the same day and burnt to the top of the Western Arthurs. In January 2013, while the Dunalley fire was raging, the Giblin River fire in the southwest was started by lightning and burnt over 40,000 hectares under the worst bushfire weather that southern Tasmania has experienced for a long time.

Lightning fires

The intensity and ferocity of these large lightning fires is hard to imagine – obvious from a distance because of the immense plume of smoke reaching many kilometres up into the atmosphere. Few people saw these fires closely as they were occurring, but observations made afterwards tell the sorry tale. The sheer scale of these fires is daunting and not fully appreciated by many Tasmanians. Organic soils, fauna, fire-sensitive rainforest and alpine vegetation suffered, but fortunately most of the vegetation burnt was the more fire-adapted buttongrass. These are not the kind of fires that we want to see in the TWWHA. Unfortunately, however, we should expect to see more.

Are lightning fires normal in southwest Tasmania?

Comments have been made on www.bushwalk.com about the efforts of the Parks and Wildlife Service to extinguish these ‘natural’ fires – some people believe they should be allowed to run their course. But how natural are these lightning fires? It is conceivable that climate change has altered the patterns of lightning storms and associated rain – indeed, scientists in the 1980s noted that lightning fire was largely absent from southwest Tasmania. It certainly isn’t now. The total mix of ignitions, regardless of source, is what fashions vegetation and associated biota; more important factors are the season of burning, size of fires and frequency. The actual source of the ignition, be it

Fire in the wildernessAdrian Pyrke

Burnt pencil pines at Lake Mackenzie after rain. Photo: Rob Blakers


a match, a flare, a fire stick or a bolt of lightning, does not make it an inherently correct kind of fire in terms of maintaining natural diversity. There is definitely a place for appropriate fire, however, to maintain a healthy environment.

Inappropriate and appropriate burning in the wilderness

In the late 19th and early 20th century white people destroyed large areas of our most fire-sensitive conifer forests and alpine heathlands in western Tasmania, by ignorant burning as well as by other activities such as mining. Aboriginal people burnt regularly for cultural reasons for thousands of years, yet King Billy pine and deciduous deech, both trees that take hundreds of years to recover following fire, co-existed in vast stands – many of these have gone in the last 150 years. The Indigenous burning must have been applied skilfully, specifically and judiciously, and the extensive areas of flammable buttongrass visible today are evidence of this active land management. The rainforest, conifers and alpine heathland we have left are very precious and no opportunity should be missed to accord fire protection to these fire-sensitive areas. It is likely that climate change will make this a significant challenge.

Effective fire management in remote wilderness

Effective fire management depends on a range of risk-management actions, none of which, on their own, provides a complete solution. Putting out unwanted fires, or suppression as it is called by the professionals, is important and, while improved success in recent decades has been aided by the development of technology, equipment (e.g. helicopters) and commitment, fire-fighting can only do so much to protect the remote Tasmanian wilderness. The ability to quickly detect lightning and fires using technology (e.g. satellite imagery, aircraft and remote lightning detectors) has become an important weapon, but it hasn’t removed the problem. Fires in buttongrass can spread very quickly and some lightning fires attain an uncontrollable size so rapidly that early suppression is all but impossible. Moreover, on days such as 4 January 2013 when fires in Tasmania destroyed over 200 houses, the highest priority for all fire-fighters is protecting people’s lives, so the

destructive impact of the fires in the wilderness is hard to address with the limited resources available in Tasmania.

Using fire to fight fire

Using fire to fight fire is another fire-management option. Bushfire researchers have developed computer simulation models that are able to test how planned fires reduce the impact of the larger, more intense unplanned fires. One such study tested many different planned fire scenarios lit in buttongrass in southwest Tasmania. These models create fires that spread through realistic vegetation, over actual terrain and are based on real weather from meteorological records. Fortunately the fires are all in cyberspace so many ‘experiments’ can be designed and tested. The evidence from the simulations is that planned fires in buttongrass, applied at the right size and strategic locations, can significantly reduce the unwanted burning of alpine vegetation and rainforest in southwest Tasmania. This is because the planned fires become barriers across the landscape that limit the spread of the destructive summer fires.

Planned burning of buttongrass

The technical understanding of the right conditions under which to burn buttongrass is now well developed, based on research and practice over the past 25 years. Planned burning is conducted mostly in autumn when the rainforest and alpine vegetation is sodden wet but the buttongrass burns nicely under these conditions which are milder than in summer. Thus the risk of accidentally burning the areas that should be protected from fire is extremely low. The weakest link is the weather forecasting for remote areas; however, forecasting accuracy will continue to improve in leaps and bounds over the next decade as it has over the preceding ones. So fire as a management tool can continue to be skilfully applied in the right places in the TWWHA.

The complexities of controlled burning

One challenge is to further develop our understanding of how fire impacts buttongrass vegetation, although much knowledge has been

Pencil pines at Lake Mackenzie ‘before and after’ 2016 fire Photos: Rob Blakers

Continued overleaf....


and alpine vegetation may still be to come. Dire predictions about climate change and fire threat to the TWWHA are unfortunately very real, as we can now see. The time for action and increased investment in planned burning and fire suppression is now.

A Second Postscript

Now at 28 April 2016, the lightning fires from 13 January are still smouldering in southwest Tasmania but fortunately will spread no further. The fire agencies will review their operational response, as they do routinely, and understand how to be better prepared for next time. Only with realistic quantification of the extra resources required (e.g. remote fire-fighters and helicopters) to protect the fire-sensitive values of wilderness areas, and therefore, of course, the cost to the public purse, can the political process move forward. Thinking bigger than the scale of what has been done in the past is required. We need a lot more.

Planned burning will not mitigate the risk to the fragile regions of the central plateau where, unlike the southwest, there are no extensive areas of less fire-sensitive vegetation in which to conduct management burns. The only tool we have for the plateau is rapid fire suppression response. Increased access and new roads are not likely to reduce the bushfire risk either – remote fire-fighters need to get dropped right next to remote fires, not just a few kilometres closer. Unfortunately there may still be times when factors such as bad weather conspire against a rapid extinguishment, even with well-resourced fire-fighting teams and all the dedicated intent in the world.

About the author

Adrian Pyrke worked for a total of 25 years for the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service as a ranger, fire management officer and state fire manager, retiring in 2014. His service commenced in 1977 but included an interlude away from the Parks and Wildlife Service between 1982 and 1994 during which he studied, worked as a botanist in Victoria and completed a PhD in vegetation ecology. He is currently working as a fire consultant.

Fire and the wildernessacquired from research. While buttongrass is certainly much more tolerant of fire than rainforest or native conifers, how often can it be burnt and yet maintain its natural diversity? This is a complex question of spacing and timing of planned fires that also provide a quantifiable benefit for protecting the fire-sensitive vegetation. While the simulation modelling demonstrates the protection benefit, the model has weak components that require better data inputs to provide more reliable answers. For example, we currently have a poor understanding of how and when fire burns in Tasmanian rainforest – in an average year there are only a couple of days when the rainforests are dry enough and the wind is sufficient to carry the fire through the vegetation. Therefore rainforests rarely burn, but they can.

Ongoing research and active management are crucial

Planned burning on its own is not the total answer to protect the fire sensitive natural values of the TWWHA. Nor is fire suppression. The modelling evidence suggests, however, that a lot of planned fire is required to make a difference. Simply dabbling in tiny areas will not be enough. Planned fire needs to be applied, the impacts on flora, fauna and soils monitored, and models further refined when new or better data becomes available. A real, live experiment with planned fire requires implementation with judicious periodic review of its effectiveness and impacts. The risk is that, without this active management, the rainforests, conifers and alpine vegetation will continue to degrade and disappear and there is always the possibility of even larger and more catastrophic summer bushfires.

Managing the fire threat requires a more resources: a lot more

Planned burning in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is afforded very limited resources at present and not nearly enough is being done. A focus on protecting people, properties and towns is understandable but fire management in the remoter parts of Tasmania should not be neglected – it is a big part of the responsibility of custodianship of the natural values. Furthermore, there is an opportunity for Aboriginal people to re-establish burning and cultural links to the country that they lived in and managed for thousands of years. While the patterns of burning from pre-European time are not well known and may not be easy to replicate, contemporary Aboriginal custodianship and management of natural values in the wilderness are entirely compatible.

Postscript

Only a week after I wrote this article, western Tasmania was hit by an unprecedented number of lightning strikes that ignited in excess of 80 bushfires. At the time of writing this postscript, fires are still burning and many will continue to do so all summer. The worst impact on fire-sensitive forests

Adrian Pyrke

Burnt pencil pines at Lake Mackenzie Photo: Rob Blakers


The TCT recommends that the government reviews its population target to determine a truly sustainable population for Tasmania. Population policy must take into account the impacts of climate change on our capacity to accommodate more people, and their consequential carbon emissions, including from building more houses, roads and other infrastructure and their likely consumption during their lifetime.

Managing natural values

The Draft Plan proposes no concrete actions to increase the resilience of biodiversity in a changing climate, proposing only that government provide information and advice for those who wish to do so.

The TCT made a series of recommendations to improve the resilience of natural values, including:

• better management of the reserve system

• expansion of the reserve system, in particular in the marine environment and on private land, to provide better protection of those values more vulnerable to climate change

• implementation of policies that restrict other key drivers of biodiversity loss, in particular by ceasing broad-scale clearing and conversion of native forest

• a review of Tasmania’s fisheries management system to determine whether it is adequate for ensuring sustainable management in a changing climate

• establishment of a statutory requirement that all lakes used for electricity production are managed to maintain water levels within a range that ensures the maintenance of critical ecological values.

Energy efficiency

The TCT questions the Draft Plan’s assumption that energy-efficiency in homes will result in a reduction in electricity consumption. It is reasonable to suggest that owners of more energy-efficient appliances, for example, may increase their use of those appliances, negating any efficiency gain. For example, better heating and insulation may lead home owners to heat more of their house for longer each day.

Conclusion

The TCT’s submission recommended a major revision of the Draft Plan, in particular addressing the major gaps identified in this article. Also, it is hoped that the state government responds to the enormous community concern that has resulted from the energy crisis. It should not just amend the Draft Plan and finalise it, but instead should release a revised version for further public comment. The government should await the outcome of the planned inquiry into the energy crisis before revising its climate action plan.

Just prior to Christmas 2015, the state government released for public comment its ‘Embracing the Climate Challenge: Tasmania’s draft climate change action plan 2016 – 2021’ (Draft Plan). However, as the TCT’s submission pointed out, the Draft Plan has major blind spots when it comes to forestry, native forest clearing for agriculture, population increase and biodiversity.

Forestry and forest clearing

Upon release of the draft plan, Minister for the Environment Matthew Groom highlighted the fact that Tasmania had reached its legislated carbon emissions reduction target decades early (by 2013 we had reduced emissions by 90% below 1990 levels). The Draft Plan credits this result almost entirely to the reduction in the extent of forestry and forest clearing (and the subsequent increased carbon sequestration).

The Draft Plan also canvasses the possibility of Tasmania becoming a zero net carbon emitter. However, the plan includes no action on forestry and forest clearing, not even suggesting that the current rate of logging and clearing will be retained, let alone reduced. We are therefore left extremely concerned that this rate could increase again. For this reason, the TCT’s submission cast doubt on the government’s sincerity in regard to reducing carbon emissions.

It seems that the minister wants to make political gains from promoting Tasmania’s success at reducing its carbon emissions, while avoiding possible criticism from the forestry and agricultural industries. The government’s stance is doubly cynical given the failure of the plan to mention two important decisions it is soon to take, regarding forestry and clearing:

• whether to stop broad-scale clearning of native forest through the current review of the Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy (the state’s native forest clearing policy)

• whether to reduce Forestry Tasmania’s scale of logging, to address non-compliance issues related to its application for FSC certification.

Population growth

The Draft Plan makes the unsubstantiated claim that Tasmania has no major constraints to population expansion. The government’s population strategy aims to increase Tasmania’s population by another 150,000 people by 2050. Yet the draft plan gives no consideration to the emissions these people will produce. The plan was released before the current electricity crisis and predictably failed to address how future shortages could be averted with a growing population.

Furthermore, the Draft Plan states that Tasmania ‘does not have any shortages of land or water’ or ‘the same congestion issues that some cities in mainland Australia are facing’. Hobart’s recent traffic problems and Taswater’s $1 billion water and sewerage upgrade program shows there is a long way to go to provide essential services for the existing population, let alone 150,000 more people.

State Climate Change Plan has major blind spots

Peter McGlone


Much has been written and said about Tasmania’s burgeoning salmon industry which is so nurtured by our government, and rightly so.

However, whilst we would all like the industry to succeed, it must do so sustainably and the views of so many others who rely on our waters for their existence cannot, and should not, be ignored.

Other aquaculture industries (including abalone, mussel and oyster growers), fishing guides, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, scuba divers and others are often critical of the seeming lack of meaningful controls of salmon farming in our estuaries and seas.

These saltwater salmon farms are often in the news but very little information comes to the public’s notice concerning ongoing problems with salmon hatcheries, which are on freshwater streams and are often hidden well out of sight.

Multiple objections and evidence seem to fall on somewhat deaf ears when these hatcheries are considered, including those of the recent Senate Committee Inquiry into Fin Fish Aquaculture, whose findings, in my view, glossed over the problems with salmon hatcheries located on freshwater rivers.

Two of these in southern Tasmania, the Russell and the Little Denison rivers, provide examples of serious stream degradation. Both these streams have been recognised as being polluted since 2002. The major cause is the use of a flow-through pond system (non-recirculating). Pristine fresh river water is directed into open-air ponds picking up any pollutants on the way through (such as fish faeces and high-nutrient undigested feed) then flows back into the river further downstream.

Modern best practice demands that hatcheries employ a recirculating system which removes these pollutants, resulting in a zero discharge into the river.

I reside by the Russell River. Another ambassador for these rivers is Richard Dax, an experienced angler who has fished there for well over 30 years. He is particularly familiar with the Russell, which is the main subject of this article.

In Dax’s own words: ‘Once the Nirvana for southern fly anglers, this stream gave consistently good sport until the coming of a large hatchery at Lonnavale in 2006 which replaced a smaller pre-existing trout hatchery. Progressively since then, angling qualities have diminished to an “average” level, as has the visible quality of the flowing water and the once prevalent wildlife.

Degradation of the Russell RiverAn angler’s opinion by Geoffrey Swan

‘Whilst this may well be construed as “anecdotal,” it is interesting to note that fishing above the hatchery before interruption to the river flow remains an outstanding fly fishing water and the water itself remains pristine and sparkling year round.’

Since 2006 there have been multiple complaints to the various controllers of standards, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), the Huon Valley Council (HVC), the Inland Fisheries Service (IFS) and Water Resources (WR) and indeed the hatchery operators themselves – the Huon Aquaculture Company (HAC). Despite these multiple objections and confirmation, in my view, from all these authorities, that the hatchery is indeed the cause of the Russell’s degradation, very little has been done to return the river to its once pristine condition.

Consider the following views from two former EPA Directors:

• The water management branch reported their record of very low flows in the Russell River over recent years and advised that currently, natural flow in the river is significantly less than the environmental flow triggers attached to the HAC water licence. Pollutants in the water being returned to the river after use in the hatchery create a high level of environmental risk in this low flow state. These matters also impact on downstream water use of the Russell River which includes potable water, irrigation, stock water and primary contact recreational use. (29 January 2008)

The HAC licence has remained unchanged since 2007: 0.3 cumecs or 26 megalitres every day of the year, regardless of total river flow, which at times is no more than 0.3 cumecs.

• Water Resources report that the Russell River has had low flows for the past four years and that the current water allocation licence is no longer appropriate to maintain environmental flow. The flow in the river is not sufficient to provide dilution of pollutants discharged from the flow through system. (31 January 2008)

• As previously advised, I agree with you that excessive algal growth in the Russell River is unsatisfactory from both an ecological and an environmental amenity basis. I am also satisfied that the nutrient rich discharge from the hatchery is a significant driver for that algal growth. While huge improvement has already been made, I also agree that this situation should have been remedied some years ago and I remain committed to appropriately remedying the issue. (19 November 2014)


Unfortunately space does not allow for a full account of the last 14 years but consider these facts:

• Three Environment Protection Notices have been issued, in 2007, 2014 and 2015. In each case, rather than ensuring that there is less pollution, each EPN loosens the regulations of the former so it is now easier for the HAC to meet the terms laid down than it was in 2007.

• The hatchery was licensed by the HVC and the IFS on the basis that it was an ‘existing use’ through the purchase by HAC of a small hatchery. A huge expansion resulted, without appropriate safeguards or due considerations to contemporary practices.

• WR insist that the flow-through is ‘non consumptive’ as it is returned to the river. However, through regulation WR allows for the ‘take’ to be 90%+ of the total flow. Whilst the return of this water can be looked at through rose-tinted glasses, without these it is clear that the resultant below-hatchery water is heavily polluted by the processes of the hatchery.

• No inflow measuring device or controls are in place to regulate the incoming flow to the hatchery, resulting in, at worst, only 10% of natural flow available between the hatchery inflow and outflow (such as in our present record drought conditions). The hatchery inflow occurs regardless of whether water flows are high or low, and results in constant damage to the natural part of the river through the greatly reduced natural flows which bypass HAC’s operation.

• Despite the constant complaints raised, the EPA insists that there should be no concerns and that the algal blooms are typical in Tasmanian rivers. To the best of my knowledge, the EPA has provided no evidence to support this claim and has not fully investigated the principal causes behind the algal blooms.

• One alga identified by the EPA is known to only thrive in polluted water conditions.

• HAC’s contemporary recirculating system, also on site, uses bore water and sprays treated effluent onto the land behind. The bore and effluent spray are close to the river and the natural topography makes it likely that this

effluent seeps back to the river, possibly further compounding the downstream pollution.

• We have recently had the voluntary assistance of a highly qualified water engineer who is employed by an international company and is an expert on water pollution. Based on the available evidence to hand, he has been able to confirm that there are indeed harmful downstream effects coming from the hatchery.

• Information used by the various authorities is based partly or wholly on measurements and figures undertaken by HAC staff – not independent science.

In fairness to the various controlling authorities, there is a realisation that there is a need for new regulations pertaining to in-stream freshwater hatcheries and new approaches are under consideration by government – but the wheels of change turn very slowly. The Russell River’s problems are now over 14 years old and require more urgent attention before it is too late and we lose our once pristine river.

About the author

Geoffrey Swan has lived alongside the Russell River in Lonnavale since 2008. On a daily basis he sees first-hand the downstream impacts of the HAC Hatchery, which is 2km upstream from his residence.

Since 2009 Geoffrey has been campaigning for change to the flow-through pond system of aquaculture into a best-practice recirculating aquaculture system. He has actively engaged in regular communications and meetings with HAC, EPA, IFS, HVC, WR, DHHS, DPIPWE, the Senate Inquiry into Fin Fish Aquaculture and all levels of local, state and federal government.

Assisting and contributing to this article has been renowned recreational angler Richard Dax. For the past 30 years he has become familiar not only with every nook and cranny of the Russell, but also with the river’s recreational amenity and other inhabitants. Platypus, for instance, once seen three or four times a day, appear as singles every now and then, and the beautiful native water rat sadly seems to be no more.

Geoffrey Swan

Downstream flow reduced to a trickle after being diverted into the fish farm, January 2016

Photograph futher downstream from the hatchery water ‘take’ Photo: Courtesy of Geoffrey Swan


Balancing the joys and health benefits of pet cat ownership with the protection of native wildlife is a key challenge for cat management. Containing domestic cats within an owner’s house and yard is essential to achieving this balance, and offers many important health and welfare benefits to cats. Encouraging more cat-owners to keep their cats within their property requires an understanding of what motivates them to prevent their cats from roaming.

Research in the UK found that information about the impact of cats on wildlife, and even evidence showing that one’s cat was killing native animals, did not influence cat-owner’s willingness to contain their cat, or convince them that domestic cats are a threat to wildlife.

This is supported by New Zealand research which found that the most important influence for cat-owners to keep their cats inside at night was understanding the benefits for their own cat (such as safety and comfort) rather than the benefits to wildlife. Not unexpectedly, cat-owners were more motivated to contain their cat at night when it was a positive experience for themselves, rather than an unpleasant one – such as being woken by the cat or the cat toileting inside. Interestingly, the views and behaviours of others also influenced cat-owners’ intentions and behaviours. For example, approval from other household members and veterinarians was an important motivator for cat-owners, as was having neighbours who kept their cats inside at night.

A recent Tasmanian study of cat-owners found four main barriers to cat containment: the belief that roaming is necessary for a cat’s well-being; a lack of motivation; a lack of care for ones’ cat; and a belief that it is too difficult.

Programs involving peer support and education, and that promote the benefits of containment for cats, along with positive experiences of cat-owners, are likely to be more successful than those that focus on education alone. Engaging veterinarians as advocates and offering practical support and advice on how to contain one’s cat are also recommended.

Most importantly, each of us can make a difference to a household or family member, friend, peer or neighbour, by offering support, sharing our experience or modelling responsible pet cat ownership. Remember, contained cats live longer, healthier and safer lives than

Responsible cat ownership – What will it take to own your pet?Kaylene Allan investigates

free-roaming cats and cats are magnificently adaptable creatures. Cats can be content inside, in a yard or an enclosure and will get the necessary exercise, enjoyment and stimulation if you plan for their needs.

Sources

McDonald, J.L., Maclean, M., Evans, M.R., Hodgson,D. 2015. ‘Reconciling actual and perceived rates of predation by domestic cats’. Ecology and Evolution, doi: 10.1002/ece3.1553.

MacDonald, E., Milfont, T., Gavin.2015. ‘What drives cat-owner behaviour? First steps towards limiting domestic-cat impacts on native wildlife’. Wildlife Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR14164

McLeod, L.J., Hine, D.W., Bengsen, A.J. (in press). ‘Born to roam? Surveying cat owners in Tasmania, Australia, to identify the drivers and barriers to cat containment’. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.11.007

Kaylene AllanCat Management Officer, Kingborough Council

Cat with GPS tracker on neckPhoto: Meg Lorang


Cat enclosure Photos: Courtesy Penny Milburn

Penny Milburn is both a cat-owner and a registered Land for Wildlife property owner who feels responsible for ensuring that her cats are kept safe and that they don’t kill native wildlife or become a nuisance to other people.

‘I lost my first cat, Hiccup, on the road, and it absolutely devastated me,’ said Penny.

‘My oldest cat, Atomic, is 12, and he was allowed to roam with Hiccup for the first two years of his life in New South Wales. Before Hiccup was killed, we had numerous expensive trips to the vet with various injuries in those two years, including from catfights.

‘They wore bells on their collars, but one day while sitting on the balcony I saw Atomic silently stalk and catch a bird very easily, which mortified me because I am also very passionate about wildlife. So I decided that building an enclosure would keep both Atomic and the wildlife safe’.

Most cats adapt well to living indoors, particularly if they have been kept this way from an early age. However, adult cats that are used to roaming may have more difficulty in adjusting.

‘I started the transition by keeping Atomic limited to inside the home and the enclosure at night, then gradually decreased the time that he was allowed to roam beyond those spaces. I think because I built the enclosure in a sunny spot where Atomic could still see most of the yard, with a few planks and logs to climb at different heights, he loved it in there from the beginning and the transition was very easy. It was a very simple enclosure that we built between the house and a fence. Marvin, Cinder and Ella have since joined

the family, and an enclosure is all they have ever known.

‘An enclosure is so much safer for the cats. It protects them from trapping, snakes, being hit by cars and from being injured or catching diseases from interactions with other cats. And so it saves me a lot of money, too. Marvin is 10 now and Cinder and Ella are both aged eight, and I have never had to take either of them to the vet for any illness or injury in their whole lifetime. We lived in a different house when they joined the family, and we simply closed in the double carport to create an enclosure’.

The remarkable fauna that exists in the wild in Tasmania was one of the special things that attracted Penny to relocate here in 2009. Tasmania has one of the highest recorded rates of cat-carried Toxoplasma infection in the world. Toxoplasma infection can be fatal for infected marsupials. When she saw first-hand the albino wallabies on Bruny Island infected with it, Penny was even more motivated to contain her cats, to help prevent the spread of this dreadful disease.

‘I was quite shocked that I flew into Hobart with four cats, without any questions asked about whether they were de-sexed, or how I intended to control them,’ she said.

Before relocating her cats to the Huon, she built an enclosure that they could access from the house via a simple tunnel. She pointed out that it is possible to build enclosures very cheaply from bush poles or scrap timbers, second-hand roofing iron and, in her case, an old fish net from Tassal.

Penny Milburn’s experience of containing cats

Kaylene AllanCat Management Officer, Kingborough Council

Responsible cat ownership


Bruny Island is a biodiversity hotspot – it is a designated site of global importance for bird conservation and has the highest recorded number of native terrestrial mammal species (27 of Tasmania’s 34 species) of any Tasmanian offshore island. It also has a dynamic tourism industry and grazing (predominantly sheep) accounts for about 14% of land use. Experience from around the world highlights that protection of these values from the impact of cats will require strong community engagement, strict by-laws for domestic cat ownership and research to inform on-ground best-practice management of stray and feral cats.

Community engagement

A Bruny Island Cat Management Working Group (BICMWG) has been established, representing the Bruny Island Community Association, Environment Network, Primary Industry groups and Kingborough Council. The aims of the group are to engage the Bruny Island community in cat management and to liaise with council on relevant issues, such as council by-laws. The group has also coordinated two successful surveys on community attitudes towards cat management.

A series of cat management workshops has been held in partnership with the Department Primary Industries Parks Water and Environment (DPIPWE) and the University of Tasmania (UTAS), including on cat-borne diseases and farm management.

Procedures are in place to support community members to trap feral cats humanely and legally. Traps are available for loan, and euthanasia protocols have been developed, along with a data collection system. The program is coordinated by a member of the BICMWG.

‘Citizen science’ activities are under way to involve community members in research to learn more about the distribution and activities of cats and at-risk wildlife on Bruny. These include the ‘Cat Tracker’ project to track the roaming behaviours of pet cats, and a remote camera monitoring program on private land to assist in protecting at-risk wildlife and livestock from cat predation and cat-borne disease (funded by NRM South).

By-laws for domestic cats

By-laws to promote responsible domestic cat ownership are essential to prevent recruitment of domestic cats into the feral cat populations, limit the impact of domestic cats on wildlife and agriculture, and ensure protection for domestic cats during feral-cat control programs.

Community surveys of Bruny residents and ratepayers in 2015 and 2016 found strong community support for responsible pet cat ownership. Of the 157 respondents, 81% supported the strict management of domestic cats (including some level of containment) and 78% supported a limit on the number of cats per household.

Kingborough Council has given in-principle support for domestic cat by-laws for Bruny. The proposed by-laws includes the compulsory de-sexing and microchipping of domestic cats, a limit on the number of cats per household and the 24-hour containment of domestic cats.

The by-laws will be phased in to give cat-owners time to comply, and subsidised de-sexing, microchipping and rehoming will be offered. As is the case with dogs, people will be able to apply for a licence if they wish to keep more cats, based on meeting management requirements.

Partnerships are being developed to implement the by-laws, including with the Hobart Cat Centre to fund a mobile cat-holding facility for the Island and guidance on humane and best-practice cat management; with the Bruny Island Environment Network, Community Association and Primary Industry groups to actively engage and educate the local community; and with the Parks and Wildlife Service, for development of a Community Ranger program to undertake community liaison, education and enforcement of the cat by-laws.

Research to inform on-ground management

Trapping by PWS and anecdotal reports indicate that stray and feral cats are widespread on Bruny, especially in the south, near townships. However, their abundance and impact on native animals and the sheep industry is not known. A UTAS project has recorded the distribution and abundance of stray and feral cats across the Island and investigated the interactions between cats, rabbits, quolls and habitat. The data is being analysed and the results will help quantify the problem, plan where to focus cat-control and identify other methods that will aid feral cat control, such as improvements in habitat for at-risk species.

Preliminary analysis of the diet (stomach and intestinal) contents of 30 stray and feral cats captured on Bruny Island (in 2008–09) was undertaken by Dr David Obendorf with input from Nick Mooney, Dr Barbara Triggs and Michael Driessen. The aim was to begin to identify the range of species consumed by stray and feral cats on the island. Native species were commonly identified, along with introduced species such as rabbits. Groups of animals identified, in order of frequency, were: native birds (mostly honeyeaters and other woodland and heathland birds, along with little penguins and a wetland bird); mice and rats (mostly swamp rats, along with swamp antechinus and a house mouse); rabbits; other marsupials (brushtail possum); skinks and a frog. In addition, food scraps were identified in four cats, likely indicating that food is provided by people or that cats are accessing domestic food waste.

Dr Obendorf’s findings confirm that free-ranging cats on Bruny Island are opportunistic feeders, consuming live mammals, birds and reptiles and domestic scraps. A broad range of birds and mammals, even if not ground-dwelling or nesting, are vulnerable to cat predation.

Cat management on Bruny Island Kaylene Allan


The intervention of the World Heritage Committee (WHC) has resulted in the state government dropping plans to allow mining and logging in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) and commit to a range of other positive changes to the draft management plan. However, there is still doubt about whether the government’s approach to tourism projects in the TWWHA will change significantly in response to the WHC.

Background to the reactive monitoring mission

During the WHC’s 39th session held in Bonn last year, the Committee requested the Australian Government to invite a joint Reactive Monitoring Mission, including the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the International Council on Monuments and Sites, to visit the TWWHA. This was ‘in order to review and provide advice for the revision of the management plan, prior to a decision to finalise the plan’.

During the Committee’s visit in November, the TCT, along with other major conservation organisations, made a presentation to the WHC’s Reactive Monitoring Mission (RMM). The TCT’s presentation focused on the potential threats from tourism developments and the state government’s deeply flawed expression-of-interest (EOI) process, in particular the lack of any meaningful assessment criteria for tourism projects.

Nick Sawyer, from the Tasmanian National Parks Association, addressed the the state government’s proposal to replace the very strong and well-defined statutory development assessment process, in the existing 1999 TWWHA management plan, with a mere reference to the Parks and Wildlife Service’s Reserve Activity Assessment (RAA) process. The RAA process is not defined in legislation, which makes it very difficult to attempt court action to review or overturn approvals, and provides no guarantee of public input.

Mining and logging will stop, what about tourism?

Following the release of the RMM report, both state and federal governments responded by stating ‘we accept all the recommendations’. The state government had previously committed to ruling out mining and mineral exploration, but all conservation groups were surprised and pleased when Minister Groom added, ‘we accept the recommendations of the monitoring mission that special species timber harvesting should not be allowed anywhere in the World Heritage Area’.

While the TCT is confident the government will hold true to the commitment to not allow mining and logging, it is yet to be seen whether its approach to tourism projects in the TWWHA will significantly change.

The RMM recommendations are that a Tourism Master Plan be prepared for the TWWHA and that

strict assessment criteria for tourism projects be developed and included in the final management plan. Unlike the no-mining and no-logging stance, however, these recommendations are open to interpretation and it is unclear how the government intends to implement them.

The TCT and TNPA have written to Minister Groom asking how the Tourism Master Plan will be developed, in particular what the consultation process will be. We have pointed out that the plan should have been developed prior to the current EOI process and have recommended that further assessment and approval of projects be put on hold until the plan is developed.

Complicating the government’s response, in April 2016 the Director of PWS released a report responding to the submissions on the draft 2014 TWWHA management plan, which includes assessment criteria that are intended to be included in the final plan. TCT and TNPA have pointed out to the minister that these criteria do not properly address the RMM recommendation. In particular, they do not directly address the impacts of proposals on wilderness values and there is no commitment to an open and transparent assessment process. Also, these criteria were developed without consulting the Tasmanian public. In light of this, we have requested that the government suspend the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s (TPC) review of the Director’s report to allow the development of ‘strict criteria’.

The TCT and TNPA stated in our letter to Minister Groom that, if the government continues down its current path, then the final management plan will clearly be inconsistent with the RRM recommendation and this will result in ongoing complaints by conservation groups to the WHC.

The TPC has a statutory responsibility to review the PWS Director’s report, to determine whether the concerns raised in the submissions have been accurately recorded and a response provided. The TPC has discretion to hold public hearings. A letter endorsed by numerous conservation groups has been sent to the TPC recommending public hearings and pointing out the added importance of them to enable submitters to comment on whether the Director has adequately responded to the RMM recommendations.

World Heritage Committee mission a victory for wilderness protection

Peter McGlone

Three Capes Track hut Photo: Rob Blakers


Roadkill: How are road managers responding ?

Reducing the number of native animals killed on our roads has been a major TCT campaign for three decades. The issue is now accepted and publicised as having serious consequences for our native species and there is agreement that it requires more coordinated, sustained action. To catalyse this, TCT is currently undertaking a survey of all Tasmanian road managers, to determine their strategies and actions to reduce roadkill within their jurisdictions.

The survey will help to gauge where there might be better coordination of resources and effort, that might lead to fewer deaths and injuries of animals on our roads.

As part of its response, Hydro Tasmania sent One lucky little devil from the road infrastructure company stornaway.

As part of its response, Hydro Tasmania sent One lucky little devil from the road infrastructure company stornaway.

Nearly 300,000 native animals are killed on Tasmanian roads every year and, on average, you only have to drive 3km to see roadkill. Of this terrible toll, over 3000 Tasmanian devils are getting hit and killed.

Thankfully, one Tassie devil had a lucky escape after a close encounter with a stornoway vehicle. Our North West Road Operations Works Manager, Ken Williams, tells the story.

‘I was on the Cradle tourist road very early one morning. It was very foggy with bucketing rain.

‘As I came into the area where signs request you slow down, I did this. But to my surprise, I caught a glimpse of what I thought was a devil running from the opposite side of the road. And he went right under the ute!

‘I turned around where it was safe to find my “victim’”. After checking his condition, I thought his days were over, but I have known devils to be pretty tough.

‘He got a front floor ride in the ute with the heater on (for him, not me) and he spent the next five hours with me as it was so early.

‘I got in touch with Parks and Wildlife in Ulverstone and Ben Corey was delighted that I’d taken the time to help the devil. Ben organised help through a vet they frequently use in Ulverstone.

‘Ben stayed in touch to let me know of the Devil’s condition. He called back later that evening for the correct location of where I picked him up so they could release him back into the wild.’

One lucky little devil…

Helen Pryor

“Science by everybody”.auDiscovery-making is fascinating: what makes ideas and information ‘click’ into a new discovery? In the game of C-O-G (Cryptograph), players very graphically piece ideas and information together with each experiment of placing a piece onto a grid of numbered lines to discover what someone put into a secret code. Because anything from simple shapes to complex calculations can be placed out on such a grid, young and old can very graphically show how scientists and others can bring into play that ingenuity with ideas and information that is behind many a discovery in science and elsewhere.

C-O-G: board pieces, rules $12 p+p $3

from F. Groenier c/- PO Don 7310

mob/sms 048 732 5761

Rescued devil Photo: courtesy of stornaway

ADVERTISEMENT


In the last six months there has been a great deal of government and local council discussion about providing better disposal solutions for end-of-life car tyres, but not much action.

One notable exception to the inactivity has been the company Tyrecycle, which has shredded and removed its stockpile of 300,000 tyres, previously stored at Longford, and sent them to its Melbourne recycling plant. We understand that Tyrecycle intends to team up with Brighton-based company Barwicks to enable regular shredding and removal of tyres, therefore avoiding the need for large quantities of tyres to be stored. Barwick’s has submitted a development application to Brighton Council for a shredding facility to process up to 300,000 tyres per year.

In November 2015 the Northern Midlands Council decided that the state’s only legal storage area for large quantities of used tyres, a facility operated by Tim Chugg near Longford, cannot receive more tyres after March 2016. This deadline has now been extended until December 2016.

The state government has established a working group to advise the Minister for the Environment on removal of the Longford stockpile (one million tyres remain) and investigate long-term tyre disposal solutions. The TCT provided a submission to this working group in December 2015, including a copy of our survey of tyre retailers (see below), but have heard nothing further.

The EPA has not finalised the Draft ‘Approved Management Method for Storage and Reuse of Waste Tyres’ (for storage of up to 6600 tyres at a single location) and we have not been advised of any time frame for its completion.

Survey of tyre retailers

The TCT believes that all tyre retailers should take responsibility for the safe disposal of end-of-life tyres (referred to hereafter as tyres) and that the customers should be charged a fair price for disposal.

To assist with achieving this goal, the TCT undertook an anonymous phone survey in September and October 2015 of 33 tyre retailers (well-known tyre brand outlets) and eight garages across Tasmania.

Key findings

Thirty-one businesses responded to the survey. These were the key findings:

• Charge customers for disposal: 19 businesses (61% of respondents) said that they charge customers for disposing of used tyres; 11 businesses (35% of respondents) said they did not charge for disposal.

• Disposal fee on the customer’s bill: 18 out of the 19 respondents who charged a disposal fee (58% of all respondents) identified the fee on the customer’s bill.

• Recycling: seven businesses (22.5% of respondents) said they send car tyres for recycling and three (less than 10% of respondents) named the recycler.

• Longford: 14 businesses (45% of respondents) said that tyres went to Longford but didn’t know specifically what happened to them.

• Unknown destination: five businesses (16% of respondents) did not know what happened to their tyres after they were taken away.

• Landfill: three businesses (just under 10% of respondents) said they sent tyres to landfill.

• Prices: prices varied little, with 10 out of 18 respondents saying they charged $3.00 for a standard tyre; a further five charged up to 50 cents more or less.

• Price for recycling: the price for recycling tyres is roughly the same as the price for other disposal methods.

Conclusions and recommendations

• All retailers should charge a disposal fee.

• Customers should be notified of the disposal method.

• A minimum price for tyre disposal should be set by regulation or through an industry agreement.

• Disposal of tyres to landfill should be banned.

• Regulation is required to prevent large-scale stockpiling.

• An insufficient number of garages completed the survey and an additional survey is required.

Car tyre disposal

Peter McGlone

Tyre shredder in action at Longford Photo: Tyrecycle

Doing something positive about car tyre problems www.tastyrecleanup.com


Across

1. Tree belonging to genus Acer (which is almost all from Northern Hemisphere)3. Mixed martial arts (abbr.)7. * TCT’s fundraiser, _ _ _ _ Clayton8. Female title9. Louse egg10. Woody vine in forest11. ‘Pine’ endemic to Tasmania (actually a podocarp)12. _ _ _stone, an island about 12km SE of Maatsuyker Island14. Exclamation (archaic)15. Expression of hesitation17. Negative response18. Crystal-lined cavity in rock19. National gemstone20. ‘Pine’ endemic to Tasmania (actually a cypress)21. Cassiterite is the main ore for this metal23. Yeoman (abbr.)24. ‘Pine’ endemic to Tasmania (actually a podocarp) (6-3)27. Largest city outside Las Vegas metropolitan area in USA state of Nevada28. Not out29. *Keeping a higher than-usual number of cats 30. Starchy food made from tropical palms31. A geological period (half a billion years or more)

Down

1. *Indian _ _ _ _ , species with potential to be introduced to Tasmania2. Disease-causing organism or agent3. Million years ago (abbr.)4. Small baleen whale5. Australian Automobile Association (abbr.)6. Me and one or more others7. ‘Pine’ endemic to Tasmania (actually a cypress) (4, 7)8. *Subspecies of cider gum pictured in TCT logo10. Same as 14 across13. Large canid14. Relating to 13 down16. *Large development proposed in 2015 for this hill (and reserve) on Eastern Shore of Hobart21. *A large number of these were cleaned up by TCT in April 2015 at South Arm22. Second-largest river in the world by discharge24. North Pacific salmon species25. Twice-serving prime minister of Australia26. Fork prong

* denotes solutions to be found in issue 335 of the tasmanian conservationist

1 2 4 53

CLUES

6

9 10

14

11

7 8

12 13

171615

18

21

23

27

30

29

24

31

22

19

26

28

20

25

Crossword #16

crossword solution # 15

Issue 336 Crossword

Please circle relevant amounts

membership categories 1 year 2 years 3 years

regular $35 $65 $90

concession $22 n/a n/a

household/organisation $50 $85 $110

corporate $500 $1000 $1500

life $700

overseas surcharge airmail only $30 $60 $90

donation (tax-deductible)

TOTAL

send completed form to

tasmanian conservation trust incFloor 2,191 Liverpool StreetHobart TAS 7000 Australiap (03) 6234 3552 f (03) 6231 2491

e [email protected]

www.tct.org.au

we greatly value your generosity

name .....................................................................................................................

address ..................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

postcode ...............................................................................................................

phone (home) ......................................................................................................

(work) .....................................................................................................................

email address ........................................................................................................

I wish to join the tasmanian conservation trust inc

I wish to renew my membership

I wish to make a donation

I have paid via EFT (BSB 067000 ACCT 28043114 Commonwealth Bank

Account name: Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc) Ref: Your name

I enclose a cheque/money order

please charge my bankcard visa mastercard

cardholder name ..................................................................................................

card no

signature ................................................................................................................

expiry date .............................................................................................................

Membership and donations

Issue 336 Crossword

The tasmanian conservationist is the regular newsletter of the tasmanian conservation trust inc ABN 63091237.

Printed on 100% recycled, 100% Australian-made paper.

Floor 2,191 Liverpool Street, Hobart TAS 7000 Australia

p (03) 6234 3552 e [email protected] www.tct.org.au

Documents

wilderness threatened by fire and tourism · Director’s report TELL YOUR STORY! To give the TCT a boost in membership and support, Heather Cassidy will be putting her film-making