Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Blog

Lung Fish Can’t Breed in Dams: Gubbi Gubbi Aboriginal Elder

By

I live in Brisbane in south eastern Queensland (Australia) and we are now on what are called level 3 water restrictions. This means if you want to water your garden you have to use a bucket. It is illegal to use a sprinkler or even a hose at any time.

South east Queensland is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia and we have had a few dry years. There is no water recycling, no desalination plant and we have not traditionaly pumped from groundwater, we have relied almost exclusively on three dams that were build decades ago.

As dam levels continue to fall and the population continues to grow the Labor state government recently committed to building a dam on the Mary River. A group has formed to opposed the dam with a website called SaveTheMaryRiver.com .

Following is an article from a local aboriginal elder about the Queensland lungfish and why the Mary River should not be dammed:

“Imagine being able to link your history back 380 million years? Impossible you say? Yes, for humans, but we have one resident of Queensland who can do that – The Queensland lung fish (Neoceratodus forsteri).

The lung fish appeared on earth 180 million years before the dinosaurs and found a habitat which enabled it to live into our days. Is it right that we humans are contemplating the destruction of this pre-historic example of evolution because of five years less rainfall than we used to have? This living fossil link is the evolution of all our feathery and hairy fellow creatures with fishes

There are six species of lung fish in the world belonging to two families. One family contains a single species only, and this is our Queenslander, making it a very rare species indeed. What is special about our lung fish is that it has only one lung, while all other species have two (paired) lungs. World-wide lung fish are very rare and endangered because they rely on special habitats that increasingly are occupied by humans. The natural habitat of the Queensland lung fish is restricted to the Burnett and Mary River systems.

The Queensland lung fish is unique in the world, making it a creature of highest biodiversity value and significance. It is a rare natural asset which we have a duty to protect.

Its uniqueness, the links to the past, afforded by its natural habitat confined to our State, should be sufficient reasons in themselves for highest protection priorityf or this creature and the habitat on which it depends to ensure the survival of a viable population – the only one of its kind on the planet.

However, another important reason to protect it, is that it is a sacred (totemic) fish of the Gubbi Gubbi people. We never killed or ate the fish, and saw it as important to protect it. We call it “Dala” and for reasons associated with its important place in our culture, we were often referred to by other Aboriginal groups, as “the Dala” people. Our traditional land encompasses the Mary River basin and its catchments.

The Mary Cod is an important economic fish, but the Dala (lung fish) are not to be killed but protected from harm.
The lungfish’s longevity of life and occupancy of our waterways, is undoubtedly due in part, to its protection by our people over tens of thousands of years. We are still bound by this duty of care – the reason for my penning this document in an appeal for help for the survival of “Dala”.

Through the Integrated Planning Act (1997), now embodied in the South East Queensland Regional Plan (2005), the State government committed itself to “recognise, protect and conserve Aboriginal values in land, water and natural resources” (section 7.4). It also recognises the principle and policies to “conserve and manage the region’s biodiversity values” and “ensure land use planning and development activities “..respect identified biodiversity values” in order to “protect, manage and enhance areas of ..biodiversity significance: (section 2.1).

The proposed dam on the Mary River clearly violates the SEQ Regional Plan because the Mary-Burnett basin is known to be the only natural habitate of the Queensland Lungfish. It also ignores the Gubbi Gubbi cultural heritage values and the reverence we give to this creature.

Studies to date give sufficient reason to not dam the river, however, if further studies are undertaken for developments which involve use of water from the Mary River, the following should be given special attention:
Studies must involve fresh-water stream ecologists and other scientists using the most up-to-date technologies and methodologies. The issue is too critical to rely on outdated practices. (Data to date indicates that our lung fish transported to other catchments have not done well, so tranportation is not an answer).Its eggs are attached to specific aquatic plants during August to December. However, it is slow growing, taking 2 years to reach 1.2 cm. and 100 years to reach its maximum size of 1.5 m. The plants on which eggs are laid, should also be the subject of study and care. With its long life span, the fact that Dala fails to reproduce under altered conditions such as those caused by a dam will go unnoticed for years – but then it will be too late to rectify the mistakes we make today, which will destroy Dala forever.

Effects of dams on Queensland Lung Fish (“Dala” to the Gubbi Gubbi people):

• Dams prohibit the possibility of migration over the long distances they need during spawning
• Dala requires shallow, flowing riffles and glides amongst dense beds of submerged aquatic plants to lay its eggs – these do not exist within a dam.

Breeding cannot occur in the deep waters of a dam. There are many issues associated with the need for riffles, optimum water quality, and so on, but the bottom line is: Dala will become extinct if it cannot breed.”

By Eve Mumewa Doreen Fesl,OAM,CM,PhD (nee Evelyn Serico), Gubbi Gubbi Elder

How to Reform the IWC & Make Australia Accountable for its Dugongs

By

There has been a lot of interest in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting this week in St Kitts in the Caribbean. Japan has tried to focus the world on the original objective of the IWC which it claims is to “to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry”.

Australia’s Environment Minister Ian Campbell has been leading the anti-whaling lobby, which wants a total ban on whaling. Almost every vote has bee reported here in Australia as either a win for us and the whales, or a win for Japan and the baddies.

There has been some discussion at my last blog post about who gets to attend the IWC and who gets to vote. There has been some discussion about the inclusion of many small island nations and also questions as to why Switzerland and Israel get a vote.

Clearly the IWC has members who have no real understanding of whaling and who could not usefully contribute to the conservation or sustainable harvest of whales.

I suggest the IWC be completely reformed and membership be limited to whaling nations, perhaps members of the World Council of Whalers.

The International Community perhaps through CITES would ask the IWC to present its whale ‘management plan’ each year showing how the agreed quotas are based on the best science and are sustainable.

In this way the whalers might be held accountable for their activities.

The world community would still need organisations like Greenpeace. They could bring to the attention of the international media nations operating outside of agreed management plans and quotas. They could name and shame nations condoning or ‘turning a blind eye’ to the harvest of marine mammal without a quota system in place.

The Australian government, for example, condones the harvest of about 1,000 dugongs each year. There is no quota system in place and this is estimated to be about ten times the sustainable harvest (click here to read a my OLO article on the issue).

This is the sort of unsustainable, and some say inhumane harvest, that should be brought to the world’s attention by organisations like Greenpeace and Australia’s Environment Minister Ian Campbell should be asked what monitoring and management plan Australia is going to put in place for the conservation or sustainable management of dugongs .

How Ignorant Are Australia’s Elite When it Comes to Toilet Paper?

By

The following letter was published in one of Australia’s broadsheet newspapers The Sydney Morning Herald on June 17, 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald could claim to have a more educated and influential readership than any other newspaper in Australia.

“Fellers not fellows

During my long and interesting life, and my travels around the world, I have observed that there are only two kinds of people: civilised people who plant and look after trees, and uncivilised humans who chop them down.

Moray MacDonald
Franz, Lane Cove”

The letter is perhaps indicative of the extent to which our elite is being swept along by environmental fundamentalism.

And I can’t help but wonder whether Moray MacDonald knows where his toilet paper comes from:

“Here’s to a logger

Who fills a need

From houses to paper
From one little seed

For those of you who
Wish to disagree

Try wiping your arse
without felling a tree.”

The poem was on my stubbie holder at the TCA Conference last year.

Japan to “Save” the International Whaling Commission

By

The Japanese Government made the following opening statement on the first day of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting:

“The Government of Japan expresses its appreciation to the Government of St.
Kitts and Nevis for hosting the 58th Annual Meeting of the IWC and for the hospitality we have received. We are pleased to be here on your beautiful island of St. Kitts.

This 58th Annual Meeting marks a serious turning point for the IWC. The IWC has been dysfunctional because of fundamental differences in the position of its members. It has become a mere stage for emotional and political conflicts at the sacrifice of the original mission of the organization: conservation and sustainable use of whale resources.

Japan, together with other members supporting the sustainable use of whale resources, has great concerns about this situation and is to express its commitment to normalizing and saving the IWC as a resource management organization. We are convinced that the IWC can only be saved from its current crisis by respecting and interpreting in good faith the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). This means protecting endangered and depleted species while allowing the sustainable utilization of abundant species under a controlled, transparent and science-based management regime.

Since the adoption of the moratorium in 1982, the IWC has failed to meet its main objective as mandated by the ICRW; that is, “to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry”. Now, after 14 years of discussions and negotiations to complete a Revised Management Scheme (RMS), this failure has been confirmed by the decision to postpone further discussions on the completion of RMS. We sincerely regret this decision.

The IWC Scientific Committee’s reports have clearly shown that many species of whales have recovered – others are recovering. It also shows that science allows sustainable harvest of abundant species of whales without depleting their stocks. Modern enforcement and monitoring measures can prevent the repetition of the past over-harvesting.

Use of cetaceans, like other fishery resources, contributes to sustainable coastal communities, sustainable livelihoods, food security and poverty reduction. Whales should be treated as any other marine living resources available for harvesting subject to conservation and science-based management. Scientifically and legally, there is no reason to treat cetaceans differently.

At this IWC meeting in St. Kitts, Japan will initiate a consultation process to bring the IWC back on the right track. We encourage those members that support the ICRW and the principle of sustainable use to join this normalization process. Failure of this initiative would mean that the IWC will lose its raison d’etre as an intergovernmental organization for resource management.”

… And all I heard on radio this morning in Australia, was that Australia “won” and Japan “lost” both votes including on whether or not there should be secret ballots. Australia’s Environment Minister Ian Campbell is telling us that so far it has been a “win for the whales”.

Aboriginal Elder Remembers Grassland Not Forest

By

Another media release from the new Regional Community Survival Group in western New South Wales (Australia):

“Aboriginal Elder, Mr Keith (Tommy) Ryan, is demanding that the NSW Government change native vegetation laws so that Aboriginals in the Bogan Shire of western NSW can locate and access ancestral sites that have become overrun with infestations of scrub.

“Infestations of invasive scrub are so thick in places on the Western Plains that Aboriginals are finding it impossible to locate and access traditional sites,” said Mr Ryan.

Invasive scrub is the term used to describe native shrubs and woody weeds that have infested formerly open woodlands and grasslands of western NSW.

“It saddens me to see the landscape of my forefathers being destroyed by the unnatural growth of these weeds.

“I remember as a boy walking on the plains and seeing a mixture of open woodlands and grasslands not a landscape dominated by woody weeds. In those days, you could see kangaroos moving across the open country and you could easily find your way to rivers and creeks.

“The city-based green groups are wrong when they say that dense stands of woody weeds are a natural feature of the Western Plains, Mr Ryan said.

Mr Ryan said that woody weeds grow so thick and fast that they smother-out native grasslands making the country prone to erosion. They also rob the soil of limited nutrients and moisture.

“The old tribal elders used to control woody weed infestations by regularly putting a fire stick to the country.

“Today, the woody weeds have become so thick in places that native grasslands have been completely eradicated and there is not enough grass cover to carry a fire hot enough to suppress the weeds,” said Mr Ryan.

It has been estimated that up to 20 million hectares (an area the size of Nebraska) of western NSW is either already infested or highly susceptible to invasive scrub.

“Now that burning is ineffective in large areas of the Western Plains, the NSW Government needs to allow farmers to clear these woody weeds by a process clearing, cropping and finally rejuvenation of native grasses.

“Clearing and cropping removes and suppresses scrub regrowth and allows native grasses to take hold,” Mr Ryan said.

“If the NSW Government acts quickly to change the existing regulations, local communities in western NSW can start the long process of rehabilitating the landscape.

“Local communities of western NSW are committed to restoring the environment and it’s about time that the Government started to heed our advice,” concluded Mr Ryan.”

Whales Eat Fish & Aussies Threaten Neighbours

By

There is never anything very subtle or civil in Australia’s approach to whaling. As a rich nation with politicians used to pandering to ‘Greens’ we are quite prepared to threaten and cajole to make our point on this issue which is simply that it is wrong to kill whales.

As a nation we never bother to explain why we believe it is wrong to kill whales or really attempt to understand why Japan, Iceland and Norway see things a bit differently.

Our media simply reports the rantings of our Environment Minister. Just today he was reported in our national daily newspaper, The Australian, telling the world that:

“countries that supported Japan would be outed and shamed”, and

Pacific Island nations that support whaling should expect tourist boycotts, and

Japan’s plan to expand its scientific program to include humpback was a “disgraceful tactic”.

There was no comment from the Japanese government in the article. I am sure it would have been forthcoming if only the journalist had asked.

Japan’s position is rarely reported in the Australian media and there is rarely any analysis of why Australia and Japan hold such different positions.

I’ve ponder why Japan, Norway and Iceland are so determined to continue whaling. On the eve of the 58th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) I will float one idea.

Japan and Iceland, in particular, are nations that have traditionally looked to the sea for their food. They are nations with research institutions that study whales and how many fish they eat. They have scientists who recognise that whales are potentially competition for food.

Consider the following statistics from the chapter by Tsutoma Tamura in ‘Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem’ published by CABI in 2003:

“Total annual prey consumption by the cetaceans of the world (whales, porpoises and dolphins) was estimated to be at least 249-434 million tonnes … fish consumption by cetaceans in the southern hemisphere including the Indian Ocean was estimated to be 18-23 million tonnes and equated to 66-120 percent of the commercial fisheries catches in 1996. In the North Pacific, fish consumption was estimated to be 21-31 million tonnes, equivalent to 67-99 percent of commercial fisheries catches in 1996. In the North Atlantic, the fish consumption by cetaceans was 15-25 million tonnes, equivalent to 87-144 percent of commercial fisheries catches in 1996.

There was probably direct competition between cetaceans and commercial fisheries in the North Pacific and the North Atlantic.”

Here’s part of one of the many tables from the same report:

fish total model 1.JPG

The numbers refer to millions of tonne per year based on estimates of daily prey consumption from average body weight (method 1). This is the most conservative of the three methods for estimating “prey consumption”.

I am not suggesting that Japan or Iceland should be able to slaughter whales because they eat fish nor that the main reason that Iceland and Japan undertake ‘scientific’ whaling is because they see whales as competition for fish.

But let’s try and understand the potential impact that whales have within marine ecosystems and lets also try and understand how this might influence how some of our neighbours and some of our friends see whales.