Creating more national parks is not feasible: MP

posted in: Latest News, Media Releases | 8

 

Environmental activists calling for the Victorian Government to establish a type of quota system for the creation of national parks are being naive, Member for Northern Victoria Daniel Young said.

“A small group is relentlessly pushing an ill-conceived agenda to place an additional 355,000 hectares of land that would become a national park in the Central Highlands under the management of Parks Victoria, which is struggling to maintain the current parks system,” Mr Young said.

A member of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, Mr Young’s comments are in response to a recent article by the Victorian National Parks Association critical of the rate at which the Andrew’s Government has created national parks since 2014.

“The criticism is that for each term of government more and more land should be locked up as a national park,” Mr Young said. “There is no justification to create national parks for the sake of creating national parks.

“The state already manages 18 percent of Victoria’s land mass, including 45 national parks. It is naïve to think the government can and should continue to amass public land holdings without a feasible or sustainable plan to maintain them.

“The Victorian taxpayer should not be burdened with the cost of creating a new national park when the current park system has a number of problems that should be addressed and fixed first.”

Within the Central Highlands area being targeted by the Victorian National Parks Association there already exists thousands of hectares of national parks, state parks, state forests and reserves.

“A national park caters to a small demographic but excludes access to certain users,” Mr Young said.

“There is currently a reasonable balance of multi-use parks within the Central Highlands area that are under threat by activists.

“I support the view that any additional money allocated to Parks Victoria should be used to enhance and properly maintain the abundance of land already available for all sorts of users, not the creation of a new mega national park full of pests and weeds.

“To triple the size of national parks in the Central Highlands is not feasible, and risks creating more problems the state lacks funding to fix.”

 

8 Responses

  1. brenton rittberger
    | Reply

    More National park rangers. More school excursions to the parks, more national parks, no more logging old and mixed growth native forest. Plantation timber and hemp now. Ban fracking forever . If the lib/nats blackmail Victoria into CSG , march on Parliament, succeed !!!. Hand back the water to the community. Bust the Cubby Station dam, remove Harrison’s pumps permanently.Water for the rivers and environment, Water for local food and drinking, Then water for our own community gardens and domestic use and swimming pools and sports fields. Then local manufacture. The greed driven broken a amoral capitalist state can argue that Coca Cola and plonk are of higher need for water than the environment. Similar greed based argument to why we support negative gearing , so that our own young people who need a home are denied by investors buying 3rd 4th etc…. properties. And we all know that without stable housing creating a home is not possible and we all know the consequences of that.Take the investment properties off the rich , this is an emergency. https://www.facebook.com/thejuicemedia/videos/10155989814568452/

  2. Sandra Hawkins
    | Reply

    These areas of land need the protections afforded them by National Park status. The services provided to us by our natural areas are grossly underestimated and largely unrecognised. Clean air and water, climate regulation, even genetic material for medical purposes are provided by protected places for our native fauna and flora.

  3. Abbey Ellsworth
    | Reply

    Are you looking for and excuse to minimise our national parks by stating that the Victorian government cannot afford what we have or, are you looking to the public for ideas on how to keep and improve, not only what we have, but to come up with some effective ideas on how we CAN afford to keep it all going? I totally agree with your statement about weeds and feral pests but, are you suggesting that we all throw our hands up in the air and say – this is all too hard, so we’ll just take the easy way out and make this into yet another lovely barren country. I’m not sure what you are getting at.

  4. Eleanor Fitz
    | Reply

    I am with you Daniel, there are other more pressing issues that need government attention

  5. Anthony Lunken
    | Reply

    Of course there is an element of truth that more money should be spent on caring for the land that is already designated as National Parks. That does not rule out the need for further nurture of our natural resources as a way of mitigating climate change. Governments spend billions of dollars on building roads that only increase pollution, but pay little towards protecting and nuturing the land that provides us with clean and healthy air.

  6. John Bowman
    | Reply

    More national parks should be set up for indigenous flora and fauna to enjoy not people.

  7. David Rothfield
    | Reply

    To appreciate the need for national parks, you must first appeciate that the land the water and the ecosystems that inhabit those spaces and on which we humans depend for our health and well being are all eing degraded due pressures from human civilisation and from climate change, also a prodct of human civilisation.

    National Parks provide the space needed to protect natural ecosystems and provide us with fresh air and fresh water on which life depends. Providing funds for national parks is a good investment for our future.

  8. Judith Mann
    | Reply

    Congratulations on taking this stand as the existing National Parks are deserving of more protection and resourcing rather than stretching funding even further. National Parks should be set up for people to use and enjoy.

Leave a Reply