Not that one, or that one either...

I read a report the other day that applied to a proposed development. It was the most tiresome twaddle, that systematically deconstructed an ecosystem and attested to just what parts the other parts could do without. Each component was substituted or substitutable, allow me to demonstrate:

1. Riparian vegetation
Ecologists know the importance of vegetation on streambanks. Its very simple...vegetation grows and holds things together, like soil. Without vegetation, high flows or even normal flows tend to take said soil with them. And the soil is not industriously trucked back by powerful fairies, it is lost to another part of the system.

Further, indigenous riparian vegetation drops leaves (senescence, a great word and neat process of shedding bits you don't need - the diet kings would love to copy it!). Said leaves etc are called detritus and they form the basis of most food chains, which is lovely. Because, in the most academic of terms, you can't have many big things, without lots and lots of little things.

Cretinous report writer however, attested that riparian vegetation removal and subsequent channelisation of a stream would not only 'create valuable space for other land uses' but would also make the site less 'messy'. So there you go, humus = 0, cretin = 1. But wait theres more...

2. Fish habitat
Many of our waterways are choked with all manner of things, including invasive pest fish. But indigenous species hang on in good numbers in many spots. This was one of them. But cretin said we dont need this particular type of habitat and the fish could be removed and located to a stream 4km away. Thereby justifying the fish barrier that the development would install, on top of the channelisation of the stream.

Ok, so we dont need riparian vegetation, and we dont need fish. Right, what else can we shed?

3. Hillside vegetation
A kanuka cloaked hillside is a common site in this country. There are a number of reasons that fragments like it exist. First because some well-meaning citizen, once upon a time, set some aside and decided not to burn/cut or erase in some other fashion all of it down. Nice. Secondly because it is 'just scrub' that got away. Third because the hill is just too damn steep. Fourth because it belongs to DoC or some other means of having reservation status. And finally, purely by accident and subject to change at any time.

Anyway, should it persist it better not have a cretin in charge of writing about it. The git proceeded to explain that it was an 'area of trees' (wow, two points!) that had limited habitat values as there were no endangered species in it. No falcons, no green geckos, no Bengal tigers of any kind. Bugger. Anyhoo, as a result of not harbouring the last population of Great Spotted Giant Things or some such it was, in its 23.4ha glory, all rather expendable having "limited to no value".

And there were other bits and reasons they be removed with a blatant lack of reasonable review, coherent discussion or counter assertions to make the whole report seem robust. But the point was, that you could argue to destroy any one part of any ecosystem. And he did, and he won...and its gone. And that irks me...