Fears for native bushland after mount thorley warkworth mine apache

Updated

The Queensland Government is moving to remove the largest tree in Mount Thorley Warkworth, after concerns sparked by the prospect of destroying the world heritage-listed native bushland near it.

Key points Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups want government to remove a tree in the area near Mount Thorley Warkworth

Officials say they will not be doing anything when there is more than one tree left

Officials say they will remove the remaining four trees but some trees in the area are native and other native bushland will be protected

But as they take out the trees, local community groups will push to preserve the native bushland around Mount Thorley, even if they lose the four remaining trees.

The state Government's department of environment and energy last week said it had already removed the largest tree in the area, named the Aptyros australis, which stands over 6 metres tall.

Environment Minister Lisa Neville said the Department of Environment and Energy would take the first five trees out of the area to maintain the landscape in a stable and secure state.

"<We>ve] asked state and federal Government to do the same and then we would seek a federal court order for all of the remaining trees in the Mount Thorley Warkworth area to go," she said.

"This is the case where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups have made their position crystal clear that there are trees around the Mount Thorley Warkworth site and there are native bushlands around the site and that this is an area that should be protected from development, not being built on."

'The only way is the old way'

"It was the only way for us to survive until the 1800s and that was when we started looking for a place to settle down," Mr Jones said.

"This will affect everyone's ability to live in and use this area because it's going to be one of the last trees around."

There was a small patch of native land left under the trees surrounding the mine on the Mount Thorley Warkworth land.

But while Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups and other groups have been fighting to save the native forest, officials want to continue working in a stable way after removing the remaining three trees from the area to maintain the landscape.

Ms Neville said it would take time to remove the remaining trees but could take up to five years.

"We're getting this right. It will be about six weeks by this time and then we want to move forward," she said.

The Department of Environment and Energy (DEO) and the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) have identified five native and five native bus 
<a href=https://www.uzgitwebtasarim.com/>카지노</a>
<a href=https://www.webix3.com/>바카라</a>
 
Court decision looms on gsi future as SCOTUS examines Texas abortion law The Texas Supreme Court has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to rehear a case concerning a Texas law that could ban most abortions after 20 weeks.

Lawmakers of Texas's Planned Parenthood Federation of America are worried that their efforts to block a law that requires ultrasounds after 20 weeks of pregnancy may result in being charged with a federal crime.

The law passed by the state's Texas Senate, Senate Bill 851, would require that physicians performing abortions obtain an ultrasound test before performing them in most cases, and that the procedure be performed at a hospital licensed in any state in which the provider has such a license.

The law is the result of a lawsuit, filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, a reproductive health advocacy group, in 2011 against abortion providers who were allegedly misinforming patients about the risks involved in undergoing the procedure — including a rise in spontaneous abortions.

The lawsuit alleged that the Texas law, however, failed to mention that it is illegal in most states to perform "unnecessary" or "unsanitary" procedures — procedures that are generally considered to be "harmful and unnecessary to the health or well-being of the pregnant woman," but that may result in induced abortion.

The court hearing is expected to last several weeks, but a trial has not yet been scheduled for the case.

A statement on the official website of the Center for Reproductive Rights explained the legal dilemma facing the group, saying that as it could not prove an ultrasound was unnecessary or unsafe under the law, it would "fight all attempts to suppress its essential service to pregnant women."

"If Texas legislators are concerned about the health of their women at any level of their legislative process, we invite them to put their focus where their hearts are," said the statement.

But, Texas' Republican-led House is expected to approve HB 851 this week and has said they have "the votes to override" the bill.

That move would likely be met with harsh resistance in the Senate, where many anti-choice groups are pushing their opponents to oppose the measure and allow its passage.

"What they're doing is really taking their word for it," said Amy Hagstrom Miller, legislative associate director of the ACLU of Texas. "It's like taking a word for the dollar, and I think that's unfortunate because there's no logic to that."

But, despite this setback to the bill, Hagstrom Miller said she feels more confident than ever about the bill's chances this year.

"I think people are getting the sense in a number of ways," she told Rewire. "This does look like an election year so it reall

https://www.shamsbim.com/