spreads (19).gif

Plenty of better solutions than simply switching off legislation that protects wildlife

The Beagle Editor, Commenting on 'lnnes presses to Switch off Biodiversity to allow bushfire rebuilds' It is really sad to hear this coming from the Mayor of our council. Our recently amended environmental regulations in NSW are already quite relaxed and have resulted in a 13 fold increase in land clearing. lt is very rare that developments are blocked or significantly slowed because of these regulations. And if they are slowed or blocked, it is because there is a real risk that threatened species and their habitat are likely to be significantly impacted and thus some mitigation is required to protect them. Suggesting that we remove these biodiversity safeguards (referred to as 'biodiversity constraints' by the Mayor), in the wake of the worst ecological disaster the region has experienced, is both negligent and short-sighted. We need to consider the impacts of our developments now more than ever, particularly because there has already been a rush to illegally clear land around houses after the fires. People are taking liberties with land clearing because of the "smoke screen" of the fires. We need to be more diligent with our environmental compliance now, than ever before. We also need to give our native species the best chance they have to recover. And this is most important at the urban/bushland interface. Burnt areas are not 'effectively cleared' as the Mayor claims, they have the potential to recover, as evidenced by what we see around us now, and will once again provide important wildlife habitat. Furthermore, suggesting that we do not rebuild to current bushfire management standards will only leave the land owner at risk when the next bushfire occurs. Bushfire management standards are there to try and mitigate the risks of bushfires impacting properties and people. We need to build more defendable and fire resistant homes if we want to live in one of the most beautiful but fireprone regions of the world. I understand that these "constraints" can be costly to recovering land owners. So instead of rewriting the laws, causing further impacts to the environment and ignoring the risk of future fires, why doesn't the Mayor ask the government to provide grants to landowners looking to rebuild to a higher level of bushfire protection. Grants to help pay for the relevant consultants reports and counciI fees. Or provide additional resources to local councils and government departments to help speed up the processing of development applications. There are plenty of better solutions than simply switching off the only piece of legislation that protects our wildlife. Reina Hill


the Coastwatchers Association Inc.

"In the Eurobodalla, up to 277 property owners will need to undertake expensive assessments under the Biodiversity Conservation Act before they can rebuild, the only way to achieve the clearing required to comply with current bushfire management standards." Clr Liz Innes

COMMENTS : Due to the risks associated with comments from unidentified contributors that expose The Beagle to possible legal actions under the NSW Defamation Act 2005 No 77 anonymous or Nom de Plume comments will not be available unless the author is known to the editor by way of a verified email address or by association.

Others who provide their REAL NAME (first name AND Surname) and a verifiable email address (it won't be published) are invited to comment below. (yes it is a pain but please comply - it would be a  shame to see your comment deleted)

Those contributors KNOWN to us and verified may continue to use their First Name or Nom de plume for ease. The primary need for all of this is due to traceability should a legal action arise.

If you need anonymity email us via our normal or encrypted email accounts

Please note that if you are looking for a previous comment that is no longer visible please contact us.