Re ‘vulnerable’ status I wondered also about the criteria. You’ll note that it was not eligible on Criteria 3-5 because the requisite information was unknown. On the first two what it came down to was that there was an observed decline in numbers and a limited geographic distribution. Maybe that’s enough according to their rules or maybe there is discretion in how the rules are interpreted. I suspect the former because there was no special arguing for a discretionary listing.

I still wanted to make a comment on how it’s not raining in the right places to run water anymore, but I’m being pursued over a history project about my former life and she’s showing up tomorrow. Unfortunately that will be the beginning rather than the end. I’d rather think about lungfish!

But, with respect to the lungfish:

So we can take it as read that it has world significance.

I don’t think that there was ever any question about the significance of the lungfish. I accept it is under threat and I wish it wasn’t.

I found Marohasy’s blog to be particularly illuminating. But it does raise some further (political) questions. For example, there is the statement that (Criterion 3

There is no data on decline in adult numbers,

Criteria 3, 4 and 5 state clearly:

the species is not eligible for listing under this criterion

It would seem that it is ‘vulnerable’. But I don’t know what meaning to give to that. Is ‘vulnerable’ more serious than ‘threatened’. I don’t know. Who can tell me?

In short, I don’t want a dam at Traveston for a whole range of reasons. But in my ideal world, I want arguments that withstand scrutiny.

My recent experiences, before retirement, were concerned with the political world; a world of disinformation or spin if you like. I am therefore attuned to the way ‘crap’is peddled.

I hope this makes some sort of sense.

So we can take it as read that it has world significance.

The most interesting piece on the lungfish I found (from a link provided by rog) is an advice to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee recommending vulnerable status for the lungfish. It is annoying that the document has no date, but here are some of the important points.

Internal evidence puts the date at prior to the Paradise Dam completed in November 2005. This makes the following statement worrying:

The core natural distribution of the Australian Lungfish is the main river channels of the Burnett and Mary Rivers. Data indicates that 26% of this core distribution is presently impounded by weirs and dams, with a further 13% likely to be impounded if proposed water infrastructure developments for the Burnett River catchment go ahead. There are also water infrastructure developments planned for the Mary River. (The figures do not consider distribution of impoundments within the tributaries of the Burnett and Mary Rivers, where habitat is marginal for the Australian Lungfish, nor the translocated populations).

So we now have 39% of the main channels impounded, with Traveston to be added. The tributaries are considered marginal in terms of habitat.

Translocation occurred during the 1890s when the lungfish was introduced to a number of streams in SEQ. They are known to exist in the Brisbane and North Pine Rivers and at the Enoggera Reservoir but in the case of the latter are assumed to be no longer breeding because the vegetation on the edge of the water has been cleared.

These populations appear to be inadequately studied but even in the Burnett, before Paradise, we have this statement:

Current research shows that there is little evidence of juveniles or young fish recruiting into the Burnett River populations, particularly in impoundments: Data on population structure has been collected by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries over the last 6 years in the Burnett River. By 2000-2001, 2770 Australian Lungfish had been sampled, and the length-frequency analysis shows levels of recruitment to the adult population for at least the last five years that are lower than had been previously experienced. There is also an earlier distinct break in recruitment in the adult population based on length analysis, indicating a long period in the recent past where few fish were successfully recruited into the adult population.

Beattie won the election and now has a mandate to proceed, having probably sacrificed two seats (Kawana and Noosa) to achieve his mandate. I’m extremely uneasy about what we’re about to do to the Mary River. I don’t know how these things play out in terms of procedure, but I think the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the Senate and local members should be lobbied to have a good hard look at it.

Google also turned up this “Rainbow Spirit Warriors” website who claim that the “Gubbi Gubbi” are really the “Ka’bi” who are in fact extinct. They refer to “a highly-profiled so-called ‘Gubbi Gubbi’ personage and ‘family’ connections” who have promoted “misinformation and community indoctrination” for (false) land-claim purposes.

Ouch! It does ring a bell but I have no way of judging the merits of the case.

The following day Morahasy put up a guest post by Steve Dennis where if you follow the links you get at last an inundation map.

I agree with you that Beattie would not relish an election after a long hot summer exacerbated by Level 4 water restrictions with plants dying, foundations cracking, fines, dobbing neighbours etc. Undoubtedly the political temperature will rise unless we have good summer rains. The SOI for the SE corner is actually looking better than it has for some time.

While the maps you point to are good, they do not provide all the detail. For example, the Mary River Map does not show Little Yabba Creek or its main tributary Booloumba Creek. I raise these two examples because those creeks contain any number of fish nests, any number of marine plants and are still flowing after all this drought; albeit very slowly. I don’t know whether there are any lungfish in these creeks, but from what I have read, the habitat seems ideal. These creeks would not be affected by the Traveston Dam.

I would like to know whether there are any lungfish above the Borumba Dam. Certainly there are some below the Dam as testified by one of the traditional owners. (By the way, there is a lungfish in an aquarium just below the Borumba Dam wall.)

It is true that gold mining was very extensive in the headwaters of the Mary not just in the immediate Gympie area. The Booloumba Creek area is dotted with many, many deep mine shafts; some of which have recently come to light after extensive searches for the bodies of three women who have gone missing, presumed murdered, in the area. I imagine that there was gold mining in the area above the Borumba Dam. Does this mean that cyanide and arsenic are already in the Gympie water supply? I do know that many backyards in Gympie are badly affected but the residents don’t talk about for fear of driving down prices.

I really don’t know how much the lungfish will be affected but to date I haven’t seen any hard evidence one way or the other. Those who have the expertise and are committed to their survival have not argued their case very well. I am sure there must be hard data, but where?

Beattie says he will have industries use recycled water. The irony might be that industry will be using the purest and best water. The people of Toowoomba voted no to recycled water. So the treated water goes into the headwaters of the Darling and then is used by the residents of the many towns dotted downstream without any reported problems.

Some normally rational people have a real mental block when it comes to ‘recycled’ water. As if the water they are drinking is somehow ‘new’..

Recycled water is a must, but politically difficult.

The Gubbi Gubbi woman was emphasising that they were known as the (insert aboriginal word meaning lungfish) people, so the lungfish was part of their identity. Emotion has to be respected in that case, I’d suggest.

If anyone can find a map showing the area of inundation of the proposed Traveston dam, it would be really helpful. We know that it is on an alluvial plain, basically river flats, and I think is only 8.5 metres deep, so the area is likely to be large.

Laura, I suppose it’s too much to ask for the Monthly article to be online.

But it is not clear whether the lungfish inhabit the tributaries that flow into the Mary below the dam.

The answer is yes. I know that they can be found at Miva Station. Or at least they were there 10 or so years ago.