Just watched the whole video - and impressive to hear Dr Jane Goodall speaking, telling her stories, and answering questions from the floor. A massive THANK YOU to everyone involved in putting this interview all together, and especially to Dr Goodall. Your tirelessness and the embodiment of hope is truly impressive. Much love and appreciation for all you do and have done on behalf of us all. xx
We are talking saving the planet! Whatever sequesters carbon the quickest has to be first choice and use! I imagine there might have been those who were entertained by Neros fiddling.
I think I touched a nerve. I don’t know if you noticed but you went on to confirm some of my accusations and I can outline many more instances of Forest and Birds unsuitability to have the influence on matters environmental in NZ. A psychopathy towards humanity in the quest of what amount to “feel good” experiences out of all proportion to their contribution to the future. I once rang the supplier of an article in a local newspaper who was a noted member of the local F&B, and confronted him about inaccuracies and outright untruths, which he tried to bluff his way through with continued BS. I eventually I made him aware I could show the manner in which he was wrong and had cause to have presented a fraudulent article to be published I invited him to approach the paper he had supplied the article to and have them print a correction, what I got was an absolute refusal.
Forest and Birds obsession with planting native trees,in pursuit of some effete philosophy about natives being superior to exotics is probably making the environmental situation worse. If there is a need for enhanced rates of sequestering of carbon the plantings should be of those species that will do that most quickly, sort out the “purity” later when the game has been saved but to gamble on this only displays why these effete individuals should not be consulted on policy.
@jamescrydeman540 Well, that's an interesting statement because indigenous tree species ARE appropriate for planting in NZ, where else? Of course, faster growing species such as Radiata Pines and some Eucalyptus species do very well in NZ. All trees and have their own specific values and purposes. It's unworthy to ascribe an "effete philosophy" label to natives vs exotics. Surely it isn't a matter of philosophy. It is a matter of what is appropriate for the purpose. Obviously, Conservationists with a 'restoration of habitat' purpose for native fauna species will choose natives over anything exotic. Planting exotics - whether for horticulture, [e.g. fruit or nut bearing trees] specialist timbers [e.g. Oak for truffle or timber] or sequestering carbon - all have a place - and a space in NZ. I hope my thoughts in reply are not too effete for you ! : )
@@franceshorton918 You are also ignoring the reality that man to survive has to modify his environment and the public estate belongs to everyone and so all their input is required into how that estate is to be managed and in what manner. The notion that Forest and Bird has that there is the one true faith and should be managed in the manner that think fit is inappropriate in a number of ways. For a start we are not talking about a museum where we look but don’t touch. The long term future of NZs flora and fauna will be botanical gardens and aviaries for it is obvious that the native flora and fauna is not compatible with mans presence and to not accept this reality now is probably marginalising the continuance of species.
@@jamescrydeman540 Thank you for your reply. I cannot agree with your statements. I believe you are ignoring the reality that we do, and will continue to plant and harvest trees of all kinds. NZ grows an astounding number of plants. You know this, I know this. I cannot see a problem for the here and now. Until Climate Change crashes through the tolerable limits for Life on Earth. I've not said that "Forest & Bird hold to one true faith ... and they believe that their way is the right way". That is your statement. Why is it "inappropriate" for them to 'give voice' to biota that have none? You use the term "Museum" as if that was a bad thing. But are our wonderful National Parks and Conservation areas "Museums?" For example, Rangitoto Island is no longer inhabited by humans, and its status as an undeveloped and undisturbed volcanic cone is deeply treasured. Is this living, breathing, geographical entity to be described in the perjorative term "museum" ? ? What is wrong with "Look but don't touch" ? You claim that the long term future of NZ's native flora and fauna will be botanical gardens and aviaries due to man's presence, and that we must all accept this reality. I would say that it is our species that is rapidly marginalising itself on this planet. I will not mourn the passing of humankind. Apes should never be in charge of anything really important.
Really wonderful, left me feeling quite emotional, thanks to all
Just watched the whole video - and impressive to hear Dr Jane Goodall speaking, telling her stories, and answering questions from the floor. A massive THANK YOU to everyone involved in putting this interview all together, and especially to Dr Goodall. Your tirelessness and the embodiment of hope is truly impressive. Much love and appreciation for all you do and have done on behalf of us all. xx
So wonderful. Thank you.
Fantastic! Such inspiring stuff
We are talking saving the planet! Whatever sequesters carbon the quickest has to be first choice and use! I imagine there might have been those who were entertained by Neros fiddling.
I think I touched a nerve. I don’t know if you noticed but you went on to confirm some of my accusations and I can outline many more instances of Forest and Birds unsuitability to have the influence on matters environmental in NZ. A psychopathy towards humanity in the quest of what amount to “feel good” experiences out of all proportion to their contribution to the future. I once rang the supplier of an article in a local newspaper who was a noted member of the local F&B, and confronted him about inaccuracies and outright untruths, which he tried to bluff his way through with continued BS. I eventually I made him aware I could show the manner in which he was wrong and had cause to have presented a fraudulent article to be published I invited him to approach the paper he had supplied the article to and have them print a correction, what I got was an absolute refusal.
Forest and Birds obsession with planting native trees,in pursuit of some effete philosophy about natives being superior to exotics is probably making the environmental situation worse. If there is a need for enhanced rates of sequestering of carbon the plantings should be of those species that will do that most quickly, sort out the “purity” later when the game has been saved but to gamble on this only displays why these effete individuals should not be consulted on policy.
@jamescrydeman540 Well, that's an interesting statement because indigenous tree species ARE appropriate for planting in NZ, where else?
Of course, faster growing species such as Radiata Pines and some Eucalyptus species do very well in NZ.
All trees and have their own specific values and purposes.
It's unworthy to ascribe an "effete philosophy" label to natives vs exotics.
Surely it isn't a matter of philosophy.
It is a matter of what is appropriate for the purpose.
Obviously, Conservationists with a 'restoration of habitat' purpose for native fauna species will choose natives over anything exotic.
Planting exotics - whether for horticulture, [e.g. fruit or nut bearing trees] specialist
timbers [e.g. Oak for truffle or timber] or sequestering carbon - all have a place - and a space in NZ.
I hope my thoughts in reply are not too effete for you ! : )
@@franceshorton918 You are also ignoring the reality that man to survive has to modify his environment and the public estate belongs to everyone and so all their input is required into how that estate is to be managed and in what manner. The notion that Forest and Bird has that there is the one true faith and should be managed in the manner that think fit is inappropriate in a number of ways. For a start we are not talking about a museum where we look but don’t touch. The long term future of NZs flora and fauna will be botanical gardens and aviaries for it is obvious that the native flora and fauna is not compatible with mans presence and to not accept this reality now is probably marginalising the continuance of species.
@@jamescrydeman540 Thank you for your reply. I cannot agree with your statements. I believe you are ignoring the reality that we do, and will continue to
plant and harvest trees of all kinds. NZ grows an astounding number of plants.
You know this, I know this. I cannot see a problem for the here and now.
Until Climate Change crashes through the tolerable limits for Life on Earth.
I've not said that "Forest & Bird hold to one true faith ... and they believe that their way is the right way". That is your statement.
Why is it "inappropriate" for them to 'give voice' to biota that have none?
You use the term "Museum" as if that was a bad thing. But are our wonderful National Parks and Conservation areas "Museums?"
For example, Rangitoto Island is no longer inhabited by humans, and its status as an undeveloped and undisturbed volcanic cone is deeply treasured.
Is this living, breathing, geographical entity to be described in the perjorative term "museum" ? ?
What is wrong with "Look but don't touch" ?
You claim that the long term future of NZ's native flora and fauna will be botanical gardens and aviaries due to man's presence, and that we must all accept this reality.
I would say that it is our species that is rapidly marginalising itself on this planet.
I will not mourn the passing of humankind.
Apes should never be in charge of anything really important.