Cassowary conservation

Although it is always nice to see articles focused on the endangered Australian Cassowary it is a shame that often writers do not find time to check their facts properly or to get their enthusiasm for species conservation channelled towards meaningful objectives.
It bears repeating that there are three species of Cassowaries; The Double-wattled, the Single-wattled and the Dwarf Cassowary. All three species have been credited with several sub-species. Only one sub-species of one species is endemic to Australia and this is Casuarius casuarius johnstonii, the Australian Double-wattled Cassowary, alternatively confusingly called the Southern Cassowary on the basis that its range is generally considered to be south of that occupied by an entirely different species, the Single-wattled Cassowary, which only exists in northern New Guinea.
Without doubt all Cassowary species are under threat. Only in Australia are there reasonably reliable statistics available about historic and current population sizes and ranges. We know almost nothing about the status of either the other two Cassowary species or about the other sub-species of Casuarius casuarius which exist outside of Australia.
The threats to the Cassowary are basically the same everywhere, but are particularly well documented in Australia: Habitat destruction and fragmentation, road-kills, hunting and invasive species. Apart from Mankind, Cassowaries have no natural enemies.
If Australia can serve as a model environment for species conservation it is perhaps ironic that there is a large Cassowary population in Australian zoos. Nevertheless, the State of Queensland has invested considerable facilities in localised measures to study and protect Cassowaries within its boundaries. To some degree Cassowary Conservation has become politically acceptable because of its flagship role and there is now even a Cassowary Coast to identify a civil administration. Despite the plethora of road signs indicating the possible presence of Cassowaries, the underlying political will to institute effective conservation measures must be doubted.
During the past fifty years tourism with attendant commercial benefits has increasingly had a negative impact on Australian wildlife and the rainforest habitat of Queensland. Over half of Queensland’s rainforest has disappeared or been severely fragmented in this time. Under the banner of progress, building and farming land, not to mention highway enlargement, has progressively encroached on the already depleted natural resources of the region. People, humans with short-sighted personal wealth objectives, have built houses, hotels, factories, schools, hospitals and supporting infrastructure to accommodate the steadily burgeoning population. There is and never was any strategic planning involved and development has proceeded piecemeal. Unfortunately for the wildlife their fate has been left to the mercy of natural disasters and belated (inter) national awareness of the importance of endemic species for the well-being and general stability of the environment.
It is not possible to turn the clock back, but some stern, probably politically unpalatable, measures could go a long way to halting the ongoing decline and perhaps reversing some of the worst excesses of the past 50 years.
1. Designate the forest and tidal forest/mangrove area as it was in 1945 as a protected area with zero future development. Establish new community areas outside of the protected area and encourage people to move into these through compulsory purchase resettlement over the next twenty years. Allow vacated plots to regenerate naturally. Public access should be limited to controlled entry points and specified routes until the forest has regenerated in 2075.
2. Install a 20kmh speed limit immediately with appropriate physical surface obstacles on all roads through and adjoining forest areas, particularly where fragmentation has occurred. The technology to enforce these measures would be easy to install and might allay some of the costs.
3. Permanently remove all pigs, dogs, cats and other non-endemic species from the protected area. Easier said than done, but within the bounds of ingenuity and determination. Although commercial hunting may help to eradicate foreign species the long term aim should be to make hunting and the carrying of all weapons within the protected area illegal.
Humans are at the same time the problem and the solution. It is necessary to get away from reactive measures and adopt long-term strategic planning which may take longer than a human lifetime to reach fruition, but will ultimately preserve the environment for all future generations. Unlike the wildlife deserving preservation, humans are capable of making the necessary decisions and implementing them.
The wildlife of Australia belongs to the people of the whole world and not just a few self-interested Queensland inhabitants.

Happy Birthday Charles Darwin

The comparative data on public acceptance of evolution is not new and should be treated with a degree of scepticism because of the different phraseology used in the questioning process. However, it should not be a surprise that those countries with a strong religious undercurrent in their societies turn out to be more unwilling to accept evolutionary theory. Although I have not seen any statistics, I suspect that the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and South Africa might have an even lower acceptance percentage than those polled.
So what, religion has been ‘evolving’ for about 150,000 years so it is unlikely to be rationalised into obscurity inside a mere 150 years.
Darwin’s theory challenged not only the accepted scientific theories of the time, but also the very structure of society, its mores and laws. We all need explanations for the world we live in and prefer a stable, secure and understandable structure to an unpredictable dynamic quantum environment where answers are hard to come by. Looking at history, it does seem that strong religious belief declines with education and the free availability of knowledge.
Perhaps the only advantage of having a global population of 6.5 billion is that we have a lot more people to do research and publish new information and theories. Although we may never have all the fossil pieces of human evolutionary development, we have sufficient evidence now to justify the claim that we have anthropoid ancestors. Not to accept this evidence flies in the face of reason.
Incidentally, although I do not have evidence of human transitional species I do have it for the genus Casuarius, which are birds, in the process of speciation.
There is not one shred of scientific evidence which supports the existence of a God, but that is not proof that there is not one – divorced as it may be from our limited perception horizons. Darwin’s theory is just a theory, but what it proposes can be tested and has opened a new way to explain the world about us. This radical departure from established religious teachings will take time to be universally accepted and integrated into our society. There are powerful vested interests throughout the world which wish to continue with a religion-based society and the adherent laws for government and property justification. Just because we have had a few thousand years of religious dominated history is no reason why we should have any more. Future generations will smile at our naivety in holding such beliefs, but we should hope they remember to utilise the positive elements when discarding the theological framework which still causes oppression, suffering and bloodshed.
Charles Darwin would be delighted to see the multitude of scientific discoveries which have been made since his death and the improvement many of them have made to our lives. Without his theory our world would be worse off and that is a tribute for any birthday.

Cassowary dung and DNA

There have been a number of articles this week on using DNA sampling of faeces from the Southern Cassowary to project population levels in Queensland, Australia.
Unfortunately these days one is never quite sure how much media hype is involved and how much factual reporting is substituted by sensationalism.
The Southern or Australian Cassowary, Casuarius casuarius johnstonii, is an endangered species. At the time of the first European settlements in the early 19th Century, the cassowary lived in the tropical rainforests which stretched for over 600km from the Paluma Range, north of Townsville, to the tip of Cape York and probably had a population in excess of 10,000.
It is now only to be found in two rainforest segments, the Mission Beach and Daintree areas, representing perhaps 20% of the original habitat.
At the last estimate its numbers were assessed as between 1,200 and 1,500. In the meantime tropical storms, like Larry, have certainly had an impact and road-kills are continuously impacting (no pun intended) on the population. A new survey to establish population numbers would certainly be useful.
Using modern technology to extract DNA samples from faeces is possible and would establish which individual had deposited it. The Cassowary is an extremely shy bird under normal circumstances and any population survey must rely on indirect observation rather than a head count. Faeces are evidence of a bird’s presence, but in themselves only indicate temporal passage (again no pun intended) of a bird. The main advantage of using this technique would be to specifically identify the Cassowary in question and perhaps thereby map the home range and indicate the breeding potential. Although hunger, as evidenced after tropical storm Larry and other similar disasters, will cause Cassowaries to migrate, normally these birds inhabit well delineated ranges which are strongly contested. Once these ranges have been established it is, except for offspring in the male ranges, very unlikely that other Cassowaries will be found in them, except as transients. Young adults do migrate looking to found their own range and depending on the availability of suitable forest will travel great distances to find them.
For any attempt at wildlife conservation, accurate information is an essential prerequisite for the ultimate success of a project. Certainly the proposed DNA sampling is likely to produce useful information about which Cassowaries are where, but the required scale of sampling will have to be huge to be meaningful. Traditional methods of extrapolating head counts, local reports allied with faeces observed will need to be intensified and frequently repeated to give a meaningful result and of a suitable accuracy to form the basis of future conservation measures. It seems that some funding has been made available to CSIRO for the project, but the A$ 50,000 recently donated will hardly employ a DNA technician for very long. If CSIRO are serious about DNA sampling it will require some substantial investment over a few years. The Cassowary is worth it, but projects have been trumpeted before and subsequently collapsed due to lack of resources. With hindsight, the Cassowary may benefit more from preventing road kills and stopping human expansion into rainforest habitat than from employing another member of staff at CSIRO to analyse its defecated food remains.

Legal responsibility

Legal responsibility

There is an ongoing case in the High Court about compensation for illnesses possibly caused by radiation on servicemen who took part in Britain’s atomic tests in the 1950s. The Ministry of Defence will contest the claims, saying they refer to events which took place too long ago, but contend that they normally pay damages to servicemen when they have legal responsibility.
Injury and death compensation to servicemen and women is something one would expect since their ‘trade’ is dangerous and the likelihood of something unpleasant happening must be fairly high. Where workers in commercial operations are at risk, compensation for industrial injury is covered by heavy insurance. In the case of the armed services the Ministry of Defence is the insurer and judging by recent cases to do with the Falklands and Irak wars is not very prompt or generous in its compensation.
Surely servicemen and women deserve at least the level of commercial industry compensation should anything happen to them? Without going into an argument about whether they are serving their country or paid mercenaries, it would seem that they deserve better treatment in regard to compensation for ‘accidents’ made while serving in the forces.
As an employer I would have thought that the Ministry of Defence had a moral as well as a legal duty towards looking after its employees. While compensation certainly costs money, considering the pain, anguish and suffering caused in service it should be made with a reasonable attitude towards how difficult it must be for ex-servicefolk to prove everything in detail and make a legal case, not to mention fund the legal battle. Would it not be more just to perhaps err on the side of generosity and be more amenable towards claims?

A dreadful mistake

Nationalising anything is a dreadful mistake if the intention, in the medium or long-term (pace Keynes), is to facilitate efficient administration. Anyone who can remember dealing with a nationalised bank in central Europe prior to 1989 probably still has nightmares about the frustrations endured. At best nationalisation should be replaced by an administrator charged with maintaining some shareholder value before business can become stable again.
You cannot improve banks by turning them into part of the state apparatus as the management incentive is irreconcilably different. It will be interesting to see if Northern Rock proves me wrong.
Banks occupy a very special position in our economy and allowing any of the major ones to become bankrupt would have a domino effect of catastrophic proportions for the UK.
A ‘bail-out’ with taxpayer’s money should be seen as an, admittedly unexpected, investment in the commercial blood supply of the economy – one which will, over time, be fully repaid. This ‘bail-out’ is only likely to succeed if those managing the banks can look forward to advancing their own personal wealth. Our tax system has benefited enormously from the financial sector and with the right future modulation and supervision will continue to do so. ‘Toxic’ assets are not entirely composed of unredeemable features and, given time, a fair proportion may be realised. Writing down is inevitable, but writing off is stupid.
If we had been privy to more information about individual banking activities regarding credit swaps and leveraging, market forces would have long ago forced a change in these practices. One thing we do need for future stability is up-to-date transparency.

Quantitative and qualitative easing

I fear that surreptitious quantitative easing has been with us for decades and is the root cause of our present global problem.
Private and commercial property valuations have allowed both individuals and institutions to print their own money without any underlying justification.
Funding by banks at 125% was perfectly logical in line with property price inflation expectations. The ‘opiate of the masses’ has been the ‘home is my castle’ nonsense encouraged by successive governments. This allowed financial institutions to bundle debt based on fragile temporal valuations in ever larger instruments and funded an unjustified gravy train for the individual who, directly and indirectly, will have to pay the piper – apologies for the metaphors.
Borrowing is necessary and good for an economy, but it does need to be securely based on redeemable assets, if only future (productive rather than inflationary) earnings. Qualitative easing aught to be a way out of our present predicament, but it seems the intended beneficiaries are more likely to be politically rather than economically motivated. Peer Steinbruch is quite correct to remember that asset creation must be based on savings and physical production. I sympathise with his brusque dismissal of the 2.5% VAT reduction as a non-starter and time will prove him right.
It would be nice, if wishful thinking, if Britain joined the EURO and we could save the £15bn annual exchange rate costs which only benefit our illustrious financial institutions. Many British goods are price anyway at parity and have been for years. Sadly introverted nationalistic political disinformation will win the day.

Introspective musings

As a white Caucasian male with a Christian upbringing, I wonder whether my opinions matter in our diverse society today and if I dare make subjective comments about race, religion or sex without mortally offending someone.
I am prone to generalisations when trying to preserve a friendship with those who might feel left out. Inadvertently, I am often inclined to offend those I would have liked to.

As a child I had little difficulty in defining myself as being English: I spoke the language, was brought up to revere England’s historic and glorious past, went to Sunday School (under duress), could sing the national anthem, played conkers, cricket and rugby, knew how to bend my head respectfully to my betters and was indisputably white.
The world has changed and although no doubt my son would make a slightly different definition, my grandchildren would probably struggle to reach a clear conclusion as to their national identity.
It is easy to be confused about national identity today and the feeling of belonging must now be much more tenuous than it was fifty years ago.
This has been tacitly acknowledged by successive governments eschewing English in favour of British, gratuitously annoying the kilted gentry up north and the diehard sheepherders in the west both of whom like to nurture nationalistic ambitions. Some circumstantial evidence about the objection to being branded as British is the rise in car number plates with the respective ‘national’ flags on them in place of the Union Jack.
Unfortunately, the traditional terminology of English, Welsh, Scottish, even Cornish and Liverpudlian has become increasingly meaningless with successive waves of immigrants.
What are the criteria for being British? To possess the right to hold a passport, have a National Insurance number and a tax identifier.
You do not need to speak the language, live in the country, pay tax or have forebears who might have done so.
Admittedly, disassociation is partly a question of colour. England, Great Britain, is situated on an island which has been involuntarily and voluntarily subject to waves of immigration and these, historically, have been very beneficial. Certainly it would be impossible to think of our history without the Danes, Saxons, French, Huguenots and Jews who have contributed so much to our culture and wealth.
Until the Second World War, immigrants were virtually all white and Caucasian so they were able to assimilate relatively easily, despite having different religious associations.
Immigration after 1945 has been of a different scale and composition to anything experienced before. Although the reasoning behind the various influxes may have been politically justifiable, they were made on the assumption of integration without any real planning to achieve this or obviate any potential problems. Successive governments avoided facing the issue and allowed immigration to continue, using the ‘multi-cultural society’ as an excuse for not tackling the issue.
Yes, many immigrants from the West Indies, Uganda, Hong Kong and elsewhere have become valued members of British society and have gone a long way to being integrated and, not least, have greatly added to our culinary enjoyment. Nevertheless, it is now painfully obvious that Britain has several sub-cultures which it never had before in its history. The children growing up under this ‘foreign’ influence have little or no feeling of belonging to British culture.
This is nowhere more apparent than with the Muslim community which has, at best, a schizophrenic relationship with the Christian host nation. Not only are Muslims more religious in their daily lives and guided by many tenets considered by Christians to be unacceptable, but they have created a sub-culture within the British culture which is neither open nor amenable to adaptation. As long as this Muslim element in our society remains minor, it will not be able to enforce changes on society at large, but birth rates are sufficient grounds for fearing that within fifty years they will be in a position to democratically demand radical alterations in how we live, certainly at local government level. In one hundred years they may even be the majority.
While all of this is speculation, subjective thinking and perhaps racial intolerance, I wonder how a young Muslim views his or her responsibility to upholding the values of tolerance and compassion, which provided a safe haven for their parents or grandparents, enshrined in the British way of life. How many would, if required, fight, physically or theoretically, for the maintenance of the nation they live in? Their motivation in life is governed by a theocracy which still lives in the Middle Ages and has absolutely no connection with modern Britain.
We are living in an unreal world when we imagine it is possible to accommodate both Islamic and Christian cultures, particularly when most British Christians have ceased to be devout. Today many people outside of the Moslem community can be considered religious fellow travellers with a trend to atheism. People do not want more dogma, but less. This attitude favours passivity and inaction while harbouring frustration and resentment at being unable to influence political events dominated by activists. These days we have laws protecting all sorts of minorities without adequate safeguards to protect and encourage the interests of the majority of citizens.
Life should be based on reciprocal respect for the life, property and culture of other human beings. That should not mean it is necessary to adopt, make allowances for or condone things which are innately foreign to the British way of life. Countries and people who wish to pursue their own culture should be welcome to do so, in their own jurisdiction. Those living in Britain should fully adopt our culture or look elsewhere for a home.
Previously our enemies were separated from us by the English Channel, but nowadays may be being nurtured from within.