I just don't understand sometimes
A few things confound me and this is no exception.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW) (NPWS) is an organisation that is supposed to manage the national parks, right? Bob Carr may not be a tree hugger himself but I believe that he genuflects in abeyence when he gets a go at traffic lights, thus he continues to lock up more an more areas for the sake of the green vote and gives less and less to the NPWS for their management costs.
Fire trails and fire breaks have been forgotten, gates locked, roads blocked with bulldozed woboys stopping any access by fire trucks, which creates the present policy that if the national park catches fire it is let burn if there is no danger to life or property. The NPWS goes along with this, but is it not against their mandate to protect the habitat, fauna and flora? How many animals are burnt or torn to pieces by dogs as they 'escape' into suburbia.
In this area, on the north coast of NSW, horses are running rampant in the national park, there are signs on the pathetic highway stating that wild horses roam onto the road. Is this a clear admittance that the national parks would be liable in the event of an accident? Maybe.
The method used by the NPWS in this case is to allow a contract musterer to muster the horses, with the suggestion, not contract, that he may sell the horses in leiu of payment. However, it is illegal to take the horses as they must be kept for fourteen days, fed and watered, at the expense of the musterer; and unsustainable agreement.
The NPWS consideres that it is managing the park ( on paper) the practicality of the exercise is not considered, nor does it seem to matter.
The horses will continue to roam and create serious danger to motorists and the habitat of the park because the men in grey and the politicians can not come up with a sensible solution.
Peter R.
