1080 on the mountain
A letter sent to Evan Rolley
in response to the request by Bass District office to consult with MAEMG re laying of 1080 on the
coupe. It was decided at the last meeting of the MAEMG that we would not enter into negotiations with Forestry Tasmania re 1080 or any other matter until the areas of concern as per
letter (breaches included) were fully addressed.
and we would make it clear that under no circumstances would we support the use of 1080 in the area.
Dear Mr Rolley,
After recent telephone communication between Mr. Brent Donaldson (Bass District Office) and Mr Simon
Wearne (Mount Arthur) the Mount Arthur Environment
Management Group Inc. met to discuss the proposed laying of 1080 poison in Coupe LI 126C and the
newly named coupe LI 126D previously known as the variation to the original forest practices plan.
As a result of this meeting MAEMG draws to your attention several areas of concern.
Firstly, as you would be aware, the establishment of a plantation in coupe LI 126C and
harvesting/regeneration of coupe LI 126D has been, and continues to be
highly contentious. Several areas of contention have been brought to the attention of appropriate authorities
and are currently under investigation following due
process. These contentious issues include:
the effects of forestry operations on threatened fauna Engaeus orramakunna currently under
investigation by the Forest Practices Board Senior zoologists and DPIWE,
the effects of plantation establishment on water yield and quality currently under investigation by
MAEMG
breaches of the Forest Practices Code particularly in relation to classification and management of class
4 streams in LI 126D,
changed status of RFA reserve and of the management decision classification zone.
It is entirely possible that some, if not all of the above issues will result in legal action.
Until these issues have been definitively dealt with by the various appropriate agencies responsible, it would
be inappropriate for Forestry Tasmania to continue any
work within the area, including plantation maintenance and establishment (including spraying, poisoning with
1080), reforestation of the area above or below Mt
Arthur Road known previously as the variation, roading or harvesting, as this may further compound the
problems involved.
Although MAEMG looks forward to negotiation with Bass District Office regarding future management of
the area, this can only occur when due process has been
properly completed for each of these issues. As such, it is inappropriate for Mr Donaldson or other Bass
District officers to seek consultation with any members of MAEMG at present.
Secondly, MAEMG wishes to make it absolutely clear to you (and Bass District Office) that under no
circumstances do we condone the use of 1080 in either of the coupes for the following reasons:
According to their Report on Mt Arthur burrowing crayfish issues related to the management of coupe
LI 126C senior Zoologists Doran, Brereton and Munks recommend much of this area for inclusion in
the creation of a new reserve, as well as recommending no further related forestry work undertaken in
the area until these issues have been resolved (see page 6, RECOMMENDED ACTIONS).
Our scientific advisors Dr Owen Ingles and Assoc. Prof. Brian Finlayson warn that due to the
solubility of 1080, the permeability of the soils, the hydrology of the area, the use of 1080 in this part
of Launceston's upper catchment is likely to result in contamination of streams and water, the effects of
which could severely endanger non-target animals including humans.
MAEMG therefore urges you to immediately instruct Bass District office to cease all operations and planning
for the Coupes in question until the above issues have been satisfactorily resolved.
Yours sincerely
  |  |
|
