The emails are running hot between wildlife carers across Australia as the RBG prepares to undertake an approved relocation of threatened grey-headed flying foxes.
Sifting through the information on the RBG website, and a few hundred emails that have landed in my inbox, one thing is becoming very clear. In this particular case plants (even exotics) are more important than native animals. Apparently the strongest argument that the RBG put forward was that their plants were being destroyed by the flying foxes. No one has mentioned, yet, that it was the flying foxes that were there first.
Quote “Flying-foxes are a protected native species and, as a result of population decline associated with habitat loss, are listed as 'vulnerable' under both State and Commonwealth legislation.”
The RBG notes that flying foxes have only been in the park for the last 20 years. You may think at first that this seems odd and may be a good case for the removal of the pests, err, I mean native animals. However, the RBG then goes on to say that the flying foxes were there 70 years ago, too. I'll just point out here that the gardens were established in 1816, so based on the frequency of flying fox visitation it's fair to say that the gardens have, in all probability, withstood several colonies residing in the gardens over that time, google it.
One has to wonder, if you had done your research before you put more plants of significance there, you would have factored in this likely probability that flying foxes will return to the area. It may have been prudent to design the park to either deter the flying foxes from it, or allow space for them. Or is the lag between understanding the migratory behaviour of a great deal of Australia's native wildlife and the application of that knowledge really that great? You'd think, with all of those scientists and consultants with the alphabet after their names that they would have thought of this. Sadly not, in fact, as I understand it a steering committee of experts was forced upon the relocation project, and the RBG can't wait to disband it. Now we have a growing protest on our hands, thank God, because someone needs to speak for the wildlife.
The RBG goes on to spruik the success of a noise disturbance relocation of flying foxes in Melbourne, seven years ago. I wonder where those flying foxes will be in 20 years time. Are you getting my drift?
If you head down to the RBG as I do love to do every time I'm dragged into the Big Smoke, you will not be met with a stinking mess of flying fox destruction the RBG would have you believe (yes they have even thrown in a health and safety hazard to bolster their arguments). You will be met by locals and tourists alike, gazing at and photographing the wonder that is in the trees, hanging like furry fruit on a backdrop of skyscrapers.
It's a waste of time and money RBG, this threatened species does not need further human disturbance. See you in 20 to 50 years for the same argument, but that's outside the current Government's voting window, so they couldn't care less. In the public interest, the loss of a few plants should pale into significance to the level of disturbance about to be inflicted on tens of thousands of threatened flying foxes.
Did that bother you? "A few plants"? GOOD. Now you have some idea of the heartbreak of 'a few' wildlife carers around the country. You can't ignore the public's distaste for the RBG plans.
In my honest opinion.
/R.
