Thread: Which Trees are Threatened?

Very handy resource for images, latin names, common names etc.

Unfortunately some of us are very familiar with this list as we had to account for every action we undertook and had to rightfully protect flora & fauna.

Sadly some species are under more threat than is widely recognised - acacia puece - waddy wood is a prime example. Listed as threatened but is highly sought after by wood collectors, knife makers etc.

The issue I have with all the CITES listed stuff is simple really. I get the need to protect the living tree when its still living. I know that there are some unscrupulous bastards out there who will make a living tree a dead tree just to turn a buck. But once it's dead, it's dead, and I think the bulk of us aren't likely to kill something rare just to get some timber... and really there's not that much profit in timber for the most part anyway with two or three notable exceptions. Ivory might have that profit margin but ebony sure don't!!!

Not being able to legally trade in material that you might have had on hand since before a CITES listing, or from legally sourced salvage is stupid, wasteful, and only promotes a black market... regardless of what the commodity is.

An impressive but very worrying list!!

I note the inclusion of macadamia integrifolia on the vulnerable species list so
I assume this list refers to species in their natural environment.

Originally Posted by John.G

The issue I have with all the CITES listed stuff is simple really. I get the need to protect the living tree when its still living. I know that there are some unscrupulous bastards out there who will make a living tree a dead tree just to turn a buck. But once it's dead, it's dead, and I think the bulk of us aren't likely to kill something rare just to get some timber... and really there's not that much profit in timber for the most part anyway with two or three notable exceptions. Ivory might have that profit margin but ebony sure don't!!!

Not being able to legally trade in material that you might have had on hand since before a CITES listing, or from legally sourced salvage is stupid, wasteful, and only promotes a black market... regardless of what the commodity is.

The legislation also doesn't handle an extinct species to well either - its extinct! Well not so for the Wollemi Pine. We also had this occur on a project. The reputedly extinct species had regrowth in disturbed ground. You have no obligation to protect an extinct species.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Wildlife Trade in Australia - Home Page

If you were a station owner and cut down a dead Acacia crombiei (Vulnerable) tree, that is OK. If the logs from that tree sat in your barn for ten years, and an American (arrogant, pushy, obnoxious, self-centered, imperious .... yeah, yeah, it's redundant, I know) wanted to buy those logs, it is absolutely, totally forbidden to export them.

When the matter at hand is not inconsistent with the spirit of EPBC Act of 1999, the law should give those whose job it is to enforce the law a little bit of common sense-flexibility. It does not. I would think laws that are rigid and inflexible serve their purpose less well than those with a bit of flexibility. They're called pressure relief valves.

Look at all the Gidgee and ringed Gidgee out there. Supply and demand are in equilibrium and little is being harvested. Let's say a small amount of Purple Gidgee became available at $100 per superfoot (harvested by station owners from dead or dying trees). Do you really think the status of the tree would be altered much? The vulnerable status of these trees is not often the result of chainsaw-wielding woodies. By the way, a status of "Vulnerable" has nothing to do with CITES Appendices I,II or III.

So, who wants to apply for an exception to the EPBC Act of 1999 and get an export permit for some really dense logs? I'll buy some logs from you!!

Originally Posted by Runge

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Wildlife Trade in Australia - Home Page

If you were a station owner and cut down a dead Acacia crombiei (Vulnerable) tree, that is OK. If the logs from that tree sat in your barn for ten years, and an American (arrogant, pushy, obnoxious, self-centered, imperious .... yeah, yeah, it's redundant, I know) wanted to buy those logs, it is absolutely, totally forbidden to export them.

When the matter at hand is not inconsistent with the spirit of EPBC Act of 1999, the law should give those whose job it is to enforce the law a little bit of common sense-flexibility. It does not. I would think laws that are rigid and inflexible serve their purpose less well than those with a bit of flexibility. They're called pressure relief valves.

Look at all the Gidgee and ringed Gidgee out there. Supply and demand are in equilibrium and little is being harvested. Let's say a small amount of Purple Gidgee became available at $100 per superfoot (harvested by station owners from dead or dying trees). Do you really think the status of the tree would be altered much? The vulnerable status of these trees is not often the result of chainsaw-wielding woodies. By the way, a status of "Vulnerable" has nothing to do with CITES Appendices I,II or III.

So, who wants to apply for an exception to the EPBC Act of 1999 and get an export permit for some really dense logs? I'll buy some logs from you!!

The one that always makes me shake my head is when you can't relocate your 100 year old, family heirloom piano internationally without reams of paperwork because it's got ivory keys.

Originally Posted by Runge

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Wildlife Trade in Australia - Home Page

.....
So, who wants to apply for an exception to the EPBC Act of 1999 and get an export permit for some really dense logs? I'll buy some logs from you!!

Comming back into Australia from NZ I had a rather thorough customs officer verify that the Ancient Kauri given to me as a gift was not CITES listed. Good to see them doing their job so well.

Runge, if you saw the postage to the US I guess you would not be too keen to post large weights of dense Aussie timbers. I sent some samples of our common rainforest species to a fellow wood turner in the US. $50 did not send much timber! Unless you have very competitive shipping?

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

Comming back into Australia from NZ I had a rather thorough customs officer verify that the Ancient Kauri given to me as a gift was not CITES listed. Good to see them doing their job so well.

Runge, if you saw the postage to the US I guess you would not be too keen to post large weights of dense Aussie timbers. I sent some samples of our common rainforest species to a fellow wood turner in the US. $50 did not send much timber! Unless you have very competitive shipping?

I've posted samples to the US before, but now I mostly get the wife to carry them with her. She always leaves with empty suitcases and returns with excess baggage. Shoes *eyeroll*
Silly thing is... it costs about 7500 to send a whole dammed container load (plus fumigation if its not certified KD). About 5k from here to Brisbane and wharf fees... and 1500 to get it from Brisbane to LA, or 2k to the east coast through Panama. Makes it hard to compete in an international market when the dearest part of around the world shipping is lifting it from the truck to the boat at home.

Originally Posted by Runge

When the matter at hand is not inconsistent with the spirit of EPBC Act of 1999, the law should give those whose job it is to enforce the law a little bit of common sense-flexibility. It does not. I would think laws that are rigid and inflexible serve their purpose less well than those with a bit of flexibility. They're called pressure relief valves.

Pressure relief leeway in the law... hmm.

You'd give an official charged with the responsibility of enfocing the law the right to interpret it too?

That would NEVER lead to corruption

Originally Posted by Berlin

Pressure relief leeway in the law... hmm.

You'd give an official charged with the responsibility of enfocing the law the right to interpret it too?

That would NEVER lead to corruption

If there are no pressure relief valves, some people may simply abandon any good faith towards a well-spirited law and just ignore the law. Rather than add nuance to laws to better serve their objective, it is easier to simply write a law that is mindlessly rigid. Have you ever been pulled over for driving over the speed limit? Were you always fined for precisely the difference between your speed and the speed limit? Have you ever known anyone to be given "a break." Your second sentence is absurd. Interpretation of laws goes on every minute on earth by those in the legal systems. Your third sentence is just as bad. Absolutism and rigidity make for a miserable society, just check out your favorite theocracy. Have a little faith in your citizenry!

Originally Posted by Runge

If there are no pressure relief valves, some people may simply abandon any good faith towards a well-spirited law and just ignore the law. Rather than add nuance to laws to better serve their objective, it is easier to simply write a law that is mindlessly rigid. Have you ever been pulled over for driving over the speed limit? Were you always fined for precisely the difference between your speed and the speed limit? Have you ever known anyone to be given "a break." Your second sentence is absurd. Interpretation of laws goes on every minute on earth by those in the legal systems. Your third sentence is just as bad. Absolutism and rigidity make for a miserable society, just check out your favorite theocracy. Have a little faith in your citizenry!

Poliies write the law
The Judiciary interprets it
The Police (and others like Customs) enforce it - referring back to the Judiciary via the courts to ensure the law has been applied correctly.

No? Tell us how it works in your Utopian Police State.

Originally Posted by Berlin

Poliies write the law
The Judiciary interprets it
The Police (and others like Customs) enforce it - referring back to the Judiciary via the courts to ensure the law has been applied correctly.

No? Tell us how it works in your Utopian Police State.

You haven't addressed any of my criticisms of your earlier comments.

Utopian police state? What does that have do with the issue of relief valves? You seem to feel that relief valves, introduced by allowing a degree of latitude for those who enforce the law, will ultimately lead to corruption. The Taliban come to mind as an organization which tolerates no relief valves. So, you never answered me whether the law has ever cut you some slack? I suspect that it has and I do not take that in any way to suggest you or the law are corrupt.

By the way, this discussion is and has been on the EPBC Act of 1999, not a high level debate of the relative merits and shortcoming of the Australian and US legal systems which you implicitly suggest. I still contend, that Act is written in a way that common sense exceptions may not be entertained by those tasked with enforcing it. In my book, that's bad legislation and bad legislation does as disservice to the intent of the legislation.

I don't think I took the topic off track, I have just enjoyed winding you up.

But I will just quickly cover your points about on-the-spot fines and theocracies.

Firstly the point about fines is a bit silly, really. Start a conversation in a pub about on the spot fines and you'll find more people who believe they were wronged than well served, or of a blind eye being turned to the infractions of off duty cops so I hardly think many people will be signing up for a system that takes that as the model.

Now, Theocracies - I love that you ended up here. The issue with a theocracy isn't with the strict application of the law, it's with the immutability of the law. We can change our laws through the political process, they're stuck with an infallible, unalterable ''book'. If you don't like a rule the answer isn't to make it fuzzy and let people apply it as and how they like the answer is to seek a change to the rule.

Originally Posted by Berlin

I don't think I took the topic off track, I have just enjoyed winding you up.

But I will just quickly cover your points about on-the-spot fines and theocracies.

Firstly the point about fines is a bit silly, really. Start a conversation in a pub about on the spot fines and you'll find more people who believe they were wronged than well served, or of a blind eye being turned to the infractions of off duty cops so I hardly think many people will be signing up for a system that takes that as the model.

Now, Theocracies - I love that you ended up here. The issue with a theocracy isn't with the strict application of the law, it's with the immutability of the law. We can change our laws through the political process, they're stuck with an infallible, unalterable ''book'. If you don't like a rule the answer isn't to make it fuzzy and let people apply it as and how they like the answer is to seek a change to the rule.

Silly? You cannot seem to remember what you wrote above. The traffic fine issue is an everyday example of flexibility in the implementation of laws. Not the least bit silly. My point with folks like the Taliban is that there are probably the most likely to support your concept of inflexible interpretations of laws.