The meeting started well enough (about 50 or so attendees - (they bought in another 10 or so chairs), but on listening to VEAC's answers to questions, I realised I was listening to a group who were spinning their answers on the spot (just like many pollies), fully on the defensive, and believed that they are set in their ways and were there for show only.
Their defence will be that "we listened to diverse groups opinions", whereas in fact they were there to defend their biases (IMHO).
Good to see diggit there, and I understand that Trash was as well, but didn't meet. Minelab was there as well.
After a brief intro by PMAV President Mike Barry:
A. VEAC started their presentation talking of the threat of increasing population pressure on the bush. What crap IMO, as 50% of our population increase is ethnic groups, and you don't see such in the bush - at least I never have! Then there's the newer generations who live for their iPhones, gaming machines, computers, and massive social media (Facebook, Twitter etc). Trying to get our kids out bush is becoming harder, so I reckon the "population pressure" on the bush will be naturally reducing, without VEAC trying to make it even harder for our kids to get out into the real bush.As the demographic of attendees was clearly the elderly, I reckon that once we pass, that the pressure on the bush will drop even further, leaving future generations locked out and relying on Social Media to maintain an interest in this world.
B. Next, they made great emphasis on how independent they were. Apart from one, the rest of the council are public servants, who didn't look as though they'd been out bush except under escort. There was so little time for questions, but would have loved to ask 1. whether any had free-camped out bush in the last 10 years, and 2. will any of them (or their families) be negatively by their decisions - I'd bet - NO WAY to both!
C. They proceeded to state that their terms of reference included environmental as well as social and economical balance, but then stated that should >75% of an environmentally endangered species reside in an area of Crown Land, then that would automatically become a National Park. No consideration of social or economic concerns at all! What bloody hypocracy!
D. Their report lumped us Recreational Prospectors (hobbyists who love and respect the bush) in with Commercial Prospectors and Miners (who are in it for financial reasons), leading reviewers to see us as environmentally damaging. I reckon that was deliberate BS!
E. They talked of Eco Tourism. What crap! eco tourists like to see major landmarks such as the Great Ocean Road, where they descend on mass in massive coaches, walk a set track and go back to 5-Star hotels for a shower, cocktails and a cooked meal. No roughing it under the stars with solid mates, telling porkies and laughing locked in arms.
F. They hid behind the Government being in Care-Take mode, and avoided many answering many questions which could have been tackled.
G. What finally broke it for me is their absolute failure to recognise the effect that increasing ferals (pigs, cats, dogs, foxes, rabbits) and weeds will have on their new Parks when recreational hunters have been banned. Those places will become an international joke or will cost us tax payers dearly to fix.
There were some good questions asked, but many unfortunately wanted to hog the floor, and again, questions were cut short as the hall had only been hired till 9:30. I reckon it could have bone till midnight. Most of us did not get a question in.
I don't mean to stir the pot, as I'm just telling it as
I saw it, but I left feeling angry; believing that we've been well and truly shafted.
Hopefully cooling down today - maybe go fly a drone or something? Heaven knows, I might need a new hobby soon