Tuesday, 2 March 2010

The rich tapestry of Letters to the Editor

I had given up reading them, but I slipped up today. It won't happen again.

This is the final paragraph of a letter complaining about 'no pet' conditions on new housing subdivisions in ecologically sensitive areas. The gist of the letter is that these conditions are discriminatory, will do nothing to improve the environment but will create areas of 'wildlife fanatics'.
The fact that so-called "wildlife" is almost continually trespassing on people's property throughout Australia has not been taken into account, other than to blame everything and everyone else.

It's not a parody.

15 comments:

mick said...

Incredible! Then maybe the planners should only allow houses in areas that have already been devastated by foolish humans!

Snail said...

I think that the author of the letter would prefer to live in a city highrise, where there's no chance of wildlife trespassing on his or her property. (Except pigeons, maybe.)

Kirk said...

"Dorothy: Do you suppose we'll meet any wild animals?
Scarecrow: Mm, we might.
Scarecrow: Animals that eat... s-traw?
Tin Woodsman: Some, but mostly lions, and tigers, and bears.
Dorothy: Lions?
Scarecrow: And tigers?
Tin Woodsman: And bears. "
Oh my!

desertnutmeg said...

Seriously, i don't know whether to laugh or just be incredibly disgusted. I may not be done commenting.

Tyto Tony said...

Are there any areas that haven't been devastated by foolish humans?

Denis Wilson said...

Hi Snail
.
Thanks for posting that - I shall send the link to my environmentalist friends - all of them!
Amazing stuff.
.
Cheers
Denis

Snail said...

Kirk, if only we had large carnivores here ...

Meggs, I know how you feel. I couldn't work out what to say about it, so I thought I'd let it speak for itself!

Tony, probably not but I suppose there are different levels of human impact. (She says from the middle of a rainforest block.)

Denis, we're moving into a state of denial --- trying to convince ourselves it really is a parody and we've all been taken for a ride.

swampythings said...

Well it does leave you speechless doesn't it?
I've heard about this proposed subdivision ......... as usual greed seems to be the driving force with no desire to compromise with a more 'sensitive' development.

Snail said...

The Council are just playing the 'what else could we do?' card, which is a load of tosh.

As for enforcing the no pets condition --- they claim they can't even enforce the dog ban in the main street of Atherton. I wonder if all the TRC by-laws have no standing or only some of them.

NanaJude said...

It's only EVER "some of them" snail.
:(

Snail said...

I know. This could be a new project, though --- determining which by-laws the TRC will enforce and which ones they couldn't give a tuppeny toss about.

neomyrtus said...

oh lordy - it's so predictably typical of councils and developers to push through 'green lots' only to show their real (lack of) intentions when the ink has dried on the contracts.

- and don't get me started about irresponsible pet owners - I'm too cynically grumpy to be tolerant and understanding ..

Snail said...

It's going to be a mess. Hopefully, the Feds will have something to say about it.

Hey, you've got a blog!

Russell Constable said...

strewth I cant believe I have had it wrong for so long! All those birds,frogs,marsupials,reptiles and other assorted critters that call my home their home have not been enriching my life after all! They are trespassers!Where did I put that rifle of mine?
Seriously snail the tablelands does not have a monopoly on stupid. In Innisfail we have a healthy colony that we keep in a special sanctuary. An historic building called the Innisfail shire council building.

Snail said...

Probably a good idea to keep all the stupid in one spot, Russell!

I took a peep at the letters section in the Tablelander on Tuesday. It was a bit disappointing. Only two letters, neither controversial, of which one was awarded Letter of the Week.