The members of the Public Land Council of Victoria (PLCV) are:
The Council supports continued access for environmentally sustainable activities on Victoria's public land.
The objective of the PLCV is to develop policies on, and promote the concept of, rational and sustainable multiple use and management of public land which balances, the use of renewable and/or natural resources on public land for economic and recreational purposes, and, the conservation of the environment.
The Public Land Council of Victoria Inc. (PLCV) has a direct membership of 56,000 people whose total financial involvement in public land is about $2,600 million.
Click here for a discussion on alternative public land management regimes for Victoria
Click here for Bushlore which is the sometimes unwritten law of the bush.
The PLCV strongly supports the Land Conservation Council's comment that, "Public land, as its name implies, is land owned by and available for use by the public."
The public land resource can be utilised for both commercial and recreational purposes without jeopardising its conservation.
In general, the PLCV supports:
The objectives of national park management should be reviewed to ensure that they meet community aspirations for utilisation and recreation
The PLCV considers that National Park management objectives should be to
The emphasis be on education rather than regulation in the management of public land.
The PLCV has long argued that in the management of public land, the emphasis should be on education rather than regulation.
The PLCV has been critical of past management plans because it considered they were too restrictive and reliant on regulation. This criticism applied in particular to the four volumes of plans prepared for the Alpine National Park. Importantly the regulations were proposed for areas in which enforcement was given low priority because the area was so vast.
The PLCV has always considered that much more thought should be given to fostering self- regulation by the users of the public land. The PLCV considers that much can be achieved through education and peer group pressure.
The current Victorian Government indicated some time ago that management plans for parks would be more strategic and less prescriptive. It stressed the importance of education programs and, in its pre-election material stated that it expected that this would "lead in the long term to an appreciation that will protect these resources without the need for undue Government regulation and interference" More recently it has become clear that Chief Rangers will have more discretion in the day to day management decisions.
The PLCV supports the use of aims and "Management strategies" rather than the large number of detailed rules, regulations and restrictions used in earlier plans.
The PLCV supports the need to preserve the wild and remote nature of some areas of Victoria and this should be the main focus of management in such areas.
The proclamation of any land as "Wilderness" should not result in an automatic ban on any recreational or commercial activities unless it is demonstrated that it causes long term and irreparable damage.
The PLCV considers that no additional Wilderness areas should be proclaimed until:
The flora of Victoria has always been managed and it must continue to be managed. If land is not managed, it will develop the same ramshackle growth as would occur on any neglected suburban block. In such conditions, any fire would be so intense that many of the plants and trees will be killed outright, and any following rain would wash away the exposed topsoil. Where land has always been managed - whether by animals or humans - the removal of that management is a recipe for disaster. This means that it is not appropriate or prudent to have unmanaged wilderness areas in Victoria.
There should be no further evictions of mountain cattlemen from the Alpine Area.
The PLCV totally opposed the termination of licences and the eviction of mountain cattlemen from the Victorian High Country.
It has become conventional wisdom within environmental lobby groups that cattle cause damage in the alpine area. This is incorrect. The terminations were based on the view which the environmental lobby groups forced on the then Government that cattle grazing conflicts with other values and users.
After its first review of the Alpine Area, the then Chairman of the LCC advised the MCAV that,
"... when the Land Conservation Council was preparing its final recommendations for the Alps is sought to ensure that some part of the national park should be without grazing. It therefore recommended that a consolidated area of the Bogong High Plains be excluded from grazing because of the need to include in the Alpine park system a representative area where the uses were fully compatible with the generally accepted concept of national parks."
The then Chairman of the LCC made no mention of the damage that cattle are often alleged to cause.
The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources should develop active management plans with each licence holder so that the cattlemen can provide even more positive assistance in the management of the area, the conservation of natural values and the protection of native flora and fauna.
That access for managed recreational deer hunting be increased. Immediate action could be taken to provide for access in the following areas:
Access for recreational deer hunting needs to be increased to;
A research project on recreational deer hunting estimated that there are 13,000 deer hunters in Victoria.
A Forests Commission survey of visitor usage of the Big River State Forest showed that recreational deer hunting represented the single most popular use of the forest.
The number of recreational deer hunters is increasing. Over the past twenty years the membership of the Australian Deer Association has increased from about 300 to almost 4,000.
While the number of hunters is increasing, the areas available for hunting have diminished, particularly over the past decade.
Another reason for supporting an increase in access is the economic importance of recreational deer hunting. It has been estimated that deer hunters spend about $60 million each year on recreational deer hunting.
Furthermore, the range of sambar deer is spreading and their number is increasing. The environmental impact of increasing deer populations where there is no hunting pressure is not known.
There should be no impediment to increasing access because it is becoming better understood that deer hunting has a very low environmental impact and occurs when other visitor use is at a minimum. Deer hunting by stalking for sambar is arguably the lowest impact recreational activity in the Victorian mountains. Indeed there are now well established precedents for recreational deer hunting to be permitted in both National and State Parks and in Wilderness Areas. Also, recreational deer hunting has been endorsed by the Land Conservation Council.
There should be strong support access for the timber industry which is based on the
harvesting and regeneration of a renewable, energy-efficient, biodegradable resource.
There is substantial evidence that forests are not diminished in area or quality by well- managed, science-based logging and regeneration. Evidence is accumulating that logging, far from damaging forests, can maintain or enhance their biotic diversity by providing a form of disturbance (necessary to regenerate forests) as an alternative to destructive wildfire. Logging regrowth forests have been willingly and deservedly incorporated into national parks and other important conservation reserves. The Australian Conservation Foundation has implicitly acknowledged the exceptional conservation values of logging regrowth by including regrowth areas in its own world heritage proposals.
Of the extinctions known to have occurred in Australia in the past 200 years, not one can be attributed to logging. Few other major industry groups can make such a claim. Some threatened species (notably Leadbeater's possum in Victoria, the Parma Wallaby, and the Dorrigo Daisy Bush) appear, according to scientists, to have benefited from habitat disturbance caused by past logging.
Given that governments are required by the community, with good reason, to control wildfire, logging offers a tool to ensure the perpetual regeneration of fire-dependant species such as Ash.
With nearly three-quarters of the forest estate in Victoria no longer available for harvesting, it cannot be argued that we will 'run out' of old-growth forest. Old growth must be seen not as the end point of forest succession but merely one point on a continual cycle of birth, death and renewal. Logging is the only alternative to wildfire to ensure there will always be new growth coming on to be the old growth of the future.
It is neither good conservation nor good government to contemplate removal of the industry from the native forest estate. Rather, what the industry requires above all is certainty of access to enable long-term investment in processes which offer value-adding potential. The progressive withdrawal of the resource in an on-going war of attrition makes this much- needed investment almost impossible to achieve.
Exploration for minerals should be permitted in all areas of Victoria, so that we can become aware of their existence, extent and quality and potential value.
The automatic ban on exploration and mining on some specified categories of land (including National Parks) now applying to nearly 40% of Victorian public land should be removed.
That any decisions to proceed with mining in such sensitive areas should be assessed on their merits.
Minerals in the ground, whether or not they have been discovered by prior exploration, are owned by the Government on behalf of the people. Miners, under licence conditions, only take possession when they are extracted.
The PLCV, the LCC and the mining industry consider that there is no justification for a blanket ban on all exploration and mining in National Parks. It might well be that commercial deposits exist in some of the less sensitive parts of parks in Victoria.
Importantly, it needs to be understood that exploration can be undertaken with minimal or zero impact on the land. Exploration methods include:-
Geophysical measurement and mapping of variations in geomagnetic fields and natural radioactivity of near surface rocks, using aircraft. Satellite enhanced imagery of deep seated structures and relative abundance of elements in surface rocks and soils. Walking the ground to observe and map geology, hand sampling of rock, soil and stream sediments, measurement of variations in earth gravity and electrical properties of rocks at depth. (Seismic observations are unusual except for petroleum exploration.)
The above methods cause no impact on the land.
Drilling holes (rarely greater than 20cm diameter) to obtain samples at depth. This only occurs when prospective mineralisation has been indicated.
This has slight transient impact and is undetectable after a short time.
If a likely mineable deposit is thought to have been found, bulk sampling from the surface or underground is sometimes needed for metallurgical tests.
This causes disturbance but can be rehabilitated.
The LCC has indicated that Wilderness areas might one day produce some elements or components which could be vital for society.
The blanket exclusion means that the community will never know what resources are available and they will never be in a position to choose between mining the resource and preserving an intact eco-system.
Exploration itself does not threaten the environment, and is subject to conditions which avoids lasting impacts.
Any extraction could only be proceeded with if it could be demonstrated that it could occur with minimal effect under strict and enforceable guidelines. Extraction of the resource would need to be followed by a sustainable and acceptable post mining use, including a return to the
pre-existing ecosystem or any other publicly agreed use.
Sustainable development requires that physical resources be available in sufficient quantities. In the case of minerals, depleted reserves can only be replaced by further discoveries and this requires exploration to continue over larger land areas. The rate at which access for exploration is being denied in Australia is therefore a matter for concern having regard to the welfare of future generations.
Policy formulation on this matter should taken into account the proportion of the land area affected by mining and its productivity.
A survey of land in use in mining for minerals in Victoria was undertaken in late 1995. The survey covered 90% of all activity but excluded brown coal, sand, stone and clay extraction. The survey showed:
It is proposed that,
- should, in pursuance of sustainability principles, justify access, as and when opportunities arise, for mining in many of the areas from which it is now excluded.
For further information contact the Public Land Council of Victoria on
Phone: 9429 2327
Fax: 9427 9324
For comment or further information E-mail: barker@vicnet.net.au