mary river turtle lungfish and cod

[falcon69]

in regards to the mary river dam petition..how many people on this site have signed it..as of now according to how many are on line right theres 179 people that could be signing it..and thats alot of signtures..come on people....if you havent already done it do it its all for something good

 

[mitch-001]

ermmmmmm what is it?

 

[falcon69]

mary river

hey mitch,its on another thread in this part of the forum,in regards to a dam if built,will wipe out 3 species of precious animals...

 

[cris]

hey mitch,its on another thread in this part of the forum,in regards to a dam if built,will wipe out 3 species of precious animals...

This is a little bit extreme, i dont actually think it will do much to lungfish at all. I also think its a bit over the top to claim it WILL wipe out the cod and turtle too, certainly it will put undesirable pressure on these 2 vunerable species, but i cant see how you can claim it will wipe them out.

The more a read about this the more i find that most info is heavily biased and often simply misleading BS(typical of greeny propaganda). Its very hard to find decent reliable info on the issues.

I have also been unable to find any decent info about the practical problems with the dam(there are heaps) does anyone know where i could find this info? I have also been unable to find out how they propose the water is to be transported and if it is treated or just piped directly into other dams?

 

[expansa1]

This is a little bit extreme, i dont actually think it will do much to lungfish at all. I also think its a bit over the top to claim it WILL wipe out the cod and turtle too, certainly it will put undesirable pressure on these 2 vunerable species, but i cant see how you can claim it will wipe them out.

The more a read about this the more i find that most info is heavily biased and often simply misleading BS(typical of greeny propaganda). Its very hard to find decent reliable info on the issues.

I have also been unable to find any decent info about the practical problems with the dam(there are heaps) does anyone know where i could find this info? I have also been unable to find out how they propose the water is to be transported and if it is treated or just piped directly into other dams?

Hi Cris,

With all due respect there are many problems with this dam ! The major one is that dams are HIGH RISK and not a guaranteed supply of water. People of Brisbane deserve water security not a dam in today's changing climate. Anyone can build a wall but who is going to make it rain??? The Mary River stopped flowing about six months ago and there were fish dying everywhere in what looked more like pea soup than water. The noxious weeds (Water hyacinth and Salvinia) choked tens of kilometres of what was left of the water. Personally, I don't even think that that water would have been able to flow through the pipeline they intend to build to get the water from the Mary to Brisbane. At times the river is struggling, without a bloody big wall.

Before labelling people, make sure you have all the facts! Eminent scientists from all over the world expressed their concerns about the impact this dam would have on the threatened species in the river. Just read the submissions to the Senate Inquiry….that also covered alternatives to the dam and they found ways of securing water for Brisbane, much faster and much cheaper…..why isn’t the Premier looking into these options?

The government’s spin-doctors are more guilty of propaganda than anyone in the Mary Valley. The Mary Valley people are getting the true facts out (often using the government’s figures)!

Lastly, as far as the possible extinctions go, take any animal designed to live in a flowing river and drop it into a lake…..it just wouldn’t work. Not to mention flooding about 70% of the known nesting grounds. The dam ‘footprint’ is the most diverse, well-populated part of the river for turtles, lungfish and cod. If you have done any ecological work in the Mary River, please state your findings to back up your comments. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THAT A LOT OF WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE REGION TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THAT THE EXTINCTIONS WON’T HAPPEN! Bligh has no data to say that it won’t happen and every ecologist that has ever worked in the Mary says “Systematic sampling over a number of years is required to understand to true impacts of this dam!” Until then, the ‘precautionary principle’ should be taken and other more viable alternatives should be pursued.

Gab

 

[cris]

Gab what is said was not directed at you or Craig(I consider you to be great consevationists and herpetologists). There is just simply alot of other crap i have been reading while googling on the topic.

I think the dam is stupid, i have previous heard of many issues such as what you mention about it not fixing anything because it is quite likely that when we need the extra water there wont be any/much in this dam anyway. I just havnt been able to find info many of the other enginerring problems it presents such as leaking through sand and how the water is supposed to be piped and where it will actually go etc. Piping water along with life forms that come with it and simply putting into another dam could be worse than the dam it self.

The dam is nothing more than a political stunt, im sure you would be aware of the ignorant and arrogant approach the Qld government has taken, "even if its not feasable(it isnt) we will make it feasable" is one quote i remember that sums up their attitude well. Hopefully it will keep raining more so ppl will lose interest in the symbolic nature of the dam and start to see how stupid it is. Im well aware that there are plenty of far better options. Environmental issues aside i think the dam is stupid and shouldnt go ahead. Engineering/practical issues aside it shouldnt go ahead, put both together and its just insane.

 

[falcon69]

hey cris..mayb i was wrong in saying that it will wipe the species out....but i dont think it is too 'extreme' for the people who have worked really hard for this not to happen..the point i was trying make was in starting that thread was,if every person signed it who was online it would be a lot more on signutres,and not everyone knows or reads what it is about,,as mitch stated he didnt even know what it was ...thats all i was trying to do...

 

[cris]

Fair enough, i just see it as something where there is no need for exageration, i think its great that you started a thread on the issue, its far more important than any other topics on this site.

Here are the original threads on the topic for those that havnt read them yet.
http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65732
http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65645

 

[expansa1]

The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP
PO Box 1840
BONDI JUNCTION NSW 1355

RE – Concerns regarding the Traveston Crossing Dam proposal and the environmental legislation that protects threatened species.

Dear Sir,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the above proposal.

This proposal threatens the very existence of at least three species, endemic only to this area. The time taken to collect data for this proposal can, at most, be only a ‘snap-shot’ of the diversity of the flora and fauna of this region. It would be unreasonable to expect the world’s leading Biologists and Ecologists to make such a vital decision with such limited data, let alone one person. Furthermore, fifteen days of data collection for an endangered species found nowhere else on the planet should not be acceptable for a project of this magnitude that will irreparably destroy a large percentage of its already restricted habitat.

I urge that you move to amend the EPBC Act (1999) to include the importance and absolute necessity to undertake Population Viability Analysis (PVA) and Population and Habitat Viability Assessment (PHVA) of little known species with limited natural distribution. A lack of available data for any species should not be grounds to accept or approve a proposal involving matters of National Environmental Significance. The precautionary principle should be administered if data is not available for a species within a proposal site and the proposal should be halted until such time as the PVA and PHVA are satisfactorily completed and included in the Environmental Impact Statement. I am sure that the ecologists responsible for the data collected for the Traveston Crossing Dam Environmental Impact Statement would agree that this is not sufficient information and requires systematic sampling over a number of years to obtain the data necessary to make a truly informed decision.

I also urge that if your position as Minister for the Environment changes before the decision is reached regarding the Traveston Dam proposal, that you forward this letter to the new Minister so he/she can consider these concerns when making the final decision.

Yours sincerely,


______________

Address


________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

 

[aftcra]

Gab what is said was not directed at you or Craig(I consider you to be great consevationists and herpetologists). There is just simply alot of other crap i have been reading while googling on the topic.

Hi Cris,

I didn't interpret your message as being a personal attack on Craig or myself! I did feel the comment regarding biased propaganda was a little unfair but being from Brisbane, I'm sure the media down there are keeping everyone well informed about the need for the dam and all of Bligh's announcements about how necessary it is.

The web sites against the dam, seem to have pretty accurate info, usually referenced........ somewhere.

If you want some more info (from leading Engineers etc), check out the link below -

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/traveston_dam/submissions/sublist.htm

And the completed report from this Inquiry is-

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/traveston_dam/report/index.htm

Hope this helps you find the answers you are looking for!

Kind regards,

Gab