Corridors Of Power

A BILLION DOLLARS HERE, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking serious money, as US Senator Everett Dirksen* once said, except in those days waste and pork were still measured in millions. Now that several generations of inflation and caring governance have added a zero to the running tally of monies squandered, both here and in the US, it is hard to get too upset about a paltry single billion. Small change beside the NBN, you might exclaim, as nothing against even the lowest-denomination variety of this government’s many follies! Still, there is one particular billion set to vanish that is reason for special regret. The holy cause, which involves small animals, was razzled and trumpeted in the Phage yesterday, and this was to be expected, as there has never been an ecological or environmental absurdity that ridiculous newspaper has found the will or wit to resist.

According to author Tom Arup, an Adam Morton-with-training-wheels, isolated pockets of bush are to be linked by “wildlife corridors”, which will allow hard-pressed species to nip across to neighbouring patches and spread the genes about. Make no mistake, this is a worthy goal, but there is precious little evidence to indicate the approach does any good and much to suggest otherwise.

In fact, there are only two certainties about habitat corridors, as they are more generally known.  The first is that the initial billion dollars will be a mere first installment on a scheme that is certain to grow like Topsy. The second is that property rights will take another beating as green busybodies impose their will and fantasy on other people’s land.

Actually, there is a third certainty: even a small part of that billion could do immeasurable good if only it were put to a more practical use.

For a good overview of the corridor sceptics’ view, read this recent report from New Scientist, hardly a journal of conservative thought. It mentions research by an Australian, Queensland University of Technology's Kerrilee Horskins, but don’t use the Slate link, go here instead, where the full document is available. What Horskins learned, much to her surprise, was that two species of native rat stuck to themselves, the DNA tests she ran failing to produce any evidence of roaming rodent Romeos. This really isn’t surprising, not when you think about it. Territorial creatures, they resent visitors, and why would any right-thinking rat undertake such a perilous expedition when ample breeding opportunities are to be had at home?

Other research strongly suggests corridors’ prime beneficiaries are cats and foxes, the two species, along with rabbits' bloodless predations, which have done more than any other to exterminate the small native creatures the corridor movement seeks to encourage. Again, little imagination is required: your fox or moggy finds dinner in the bushes, then trots home along the open ground or, just as likely, to the next kill. And what is a corridor? A long strip of bush flanked by open ground -- meaning foxes in particular will be able to patrol the corridor’s edge, dive into the greenery for a meal, and then emerge into the open where the going is easy, to pounce again somewhere else. That research is summarised here, starting on page 13.

All of the above crystalises the pointlessness or actual downside corridors present to wildlife. This map represents their peril to property owners:

The section above covers a slice of the Mornington Peninsula as the animal lovers at the Australian Wildlife Protection Council wish to see it. The green arrows represent proposed corridors, and it should be obvious at a glance that a good deal of private property will need to be reserved. No worries, says Arup of the Phage, who quotes these re-assuring words from Environment Minister Tony Burke: “Any linking of the corridors would only be done through existing methods of putting land into conservation, such as the work of Landcare volunteers, or when farmers have chosen to be part of environmental stewardship.''

The very next paragraph, however, says something rather different. In Arup’s words, “Under the plan the federal government would pass new laws this year allowing the environment minister to declare a national wildlife corridor. Corridors could be nominated by community groups for listing.” 

As cabinet’s environmental operative, Burke represents one our PM’s few appropriate ministerial picks -- a distinction he earned by virtue of being the largest beady-eyed creature known to live under a rock. If farmers believe they will be able to choose whether or not to allow a corridor across their properties, then they do not know Burke very well. If Burke has ever told the truth about anything it is only because his second lie accidentally reversed his first.

The National Farmers Federation is asking members for thoughts on the billion-dollar proposal, and they are demonstrating a commendable wariness: 

“One area that is of particular concern for the NFF and our members is the management of invasive animals, plants, fire and other risks within the wildlife corridors. We have called for a greater focus on invasive species and fire under round one of the Biodiversity Fund, and will continue to work with Government to ensure this commitment is made through the corridors plan.” 

Well good luck with that, Man On The Land. Those feral species will love your new corridors, and you can expect lots of grief, interference, oversight and fines, always fines, from ivory tower ecologists if you attempt to do anything about them.

And do you know the real tragedy of all this? You could shoot, poison and trap an awful lot of foxes and cats in return for a billion dollars worth of bounties. Mind you, placing a bounty on ecological green theorists might put that cash to even better use.

Oh, and one last thing. That billion dollars is going be drawn from Carbon Tax revenues. It is another pressing reason why it must never be implemeted and, if it is, dismantled as a matter of urgency.

*Thanks to reader Ian Newton for correcting the Professor's ailing memory. The quote in the first paragraph was not, as originally attributed, the wisdom of Sam Rayburn. Apolgies for a dopey error.